City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Total 55.0 acres2 714 units 13.0
*Net acreage based on removal of roadway areas and oil pipeline easement areas and are approximations. **Density range is based on net acreage and thus approximations.
The surrounding densities range from seven dwelling units per acre (Holbrook Heights) to a planned density of 60-150 dwelling units per acre surrounding the North Concord BART station. More specifically, the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area Plan land use designations for the CNWS areas east of the Property range from 18-100 dwelling units per net acre and 14-50 dwelling units per net acre, and 8-12 dwelling units per net acre along the south side. Further, the North Concord BART station parking lot north of the Property is subject to Assembly Bill 2923, which provides BART with the land use authority for development. BART’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Guidelines require a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed densities of Quinault Village are relatively low for its proximity to transit, particularly given the northern third of the subject site is within a one-half mile distance of the BART Station. This is a concern particularly for development adjacent to the North Concord BART station, which is a prime location for higherdensity housing (higher than what is currently proposed). For example, the area surrounding most of the Downtown Concord BART station generally has a density range of 33-100 dwelling units per acre. Increasing density would help to address lack of housing supply and affordability issues currently being experienced in Concord and throughout the State, while taking advantage of the proximity to BART to help achieve sustainability, TOD, and transit-oriented community policies (explained further below). The goal of transit-oriented development is to maximize the amount of residential, business, and leisure space within walking distance of public transport, which reduces the use of cars and promotes sustainable urban growth. A mid- to high-density neighborhood on the northern portion of the site would be most consistent with land use best practices given that a large portion of Quinault Village lies within the “one-half mile radius” that is typically associated with transit-oriented development around transit stations.
Further, the proposed density conflicts with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) policy, which requires a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre for residential development within the one-half mile radius of BART. If the City does not meet this minimum density, it could have a future potential impact for the City’s eligibility for transit funding.
The proposal to rezone Victory Village to RL (Residential Low Density) also creates a challenge as the City’s existing zoning regulations do not allow for multifamily buildings within the RL district. Other zoning districts that allow multifamily residential (e.g., Residential Medium Density or High Density Residential) are not
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
an option because the minimum density required by these zoning districts exceeds the density of Victory Village. And while multifamily buildings could be added as an allowed use in the RL zoning district through a zoning text amendment, staff does not support this approach because of the ramifications it would have citywide. Another approach that staff could support would be to create a zoning overlay that would take into account the existing conditions of Victory Village.
Affordable housing. The Applicant’s proposed terms for a Development Agreement include providing 107 inclusionary affordable units for both villages within the multifamily building proposed on Lot A (adjacent to the North Concord BART station), which amounts to 15 percent of the project’s 714 total units. The other 43 units on Lot A would be market-rate rentals. The Applicant intends on selling Lot A to an affordable housing developer to optimize the operation of affordable housing for the project and capitalize on the proximity of the site to the North Concord BART station. The income mix is proposed as 53 low income and 54 moderate income units; however, if Lot A is ultimately developed by an affordable housing developer, it is very likely that a higher number of affordable units would be provided in total and at lower income affordability levels.
The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Ordinance) requires six percent of units within a rental project to be affordable6 and 15 percent of units within an ownership project to be affordable7; however, inclusionary housing units provided off-site must be provided at a two to one ratio. The Ordinance also requires the units to be spread throughout the project, have a similar external appearance and of comparable size to the market-rate units, and for the developer to execute an affordable housing agreement.
Pursuant to the Ordinance, the number of units required for the entire project at each of the income level are provided in Table 3 below and reflects the Applicant’s proposal for which units will be provided onsite and which units will be provided off-site. For the purpose of determining the project’s inclusionary housing requirements, the table treats Victory Village and Parcels A-D of Quinault Village as separate sites; therefore, the table includes requirements for off-site inclusionary units to account for the Applicant’s current proposal for Victory Village and Parcels B-D relying on the inclusionary units proposed on Parcel A.
Table 3
Project’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement as Proposed
On-Site Off-Site*
6 The six percent is comprised as follows: one percent of all units in the project shall be very low-income, one percent of all units in the project shall be low-income, and four percent of all units in the project shall be moderate-income units. 7 The 15 percent is comprised as follows: 7.5 percent of all units in the project shall be low-income units and 7.5 percent of all units in the project shall be moderate-income units
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Village –
unit type
Moderate Low Very
Low
Moderate Low Very
Low
Victory –
rental
units
N/A N/A N/A 16 4 4
Quinault
–
ownership
units
N/A N/A N/A 54 54 0
Quinault -
– rental
units (Lot
A)
6 2 2 N/A N/A N/A
Total 6 2 2 70 58 4
Required 10 132
*If proposed off-site, inclusionary units must be provided at a ratio of two off-site units per on-site unit required.
In summary, the project as proposed is required to provide 142 units at various income levels. Overall, the Applicant’s proposal does not meet the requirements of the Ordinance as follows:
• A numerical deficit of 35 units by only providing 107 units when 142 are required
• Does not meet the depth of affordability since none of the units are proposed to be affordable to very low-income households • The units are not scattered throughout the project
• No ownership units are being provided
• The unit sizes are likely not comparable to the market-rate units.
Due to the Applicant’s proposed deviations from the Ordinance, this can only be achieved through a Development Agreement.
Oil pipelines. The Applicant’s proposal would relocate all three high-pressure pipelines from their current locations to be within the main public road proposed within Quinault Village, extending from CNWS lands to East Olivera Road.
Engineering staff has some concerns with respect to the proximity of the pipelines to the City’s utilities and has requested more detail from the Applicant in terms of horizontal and vertical sections of the roadway, with utilities and pipeline alignments for submittal with the formal application.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Relocation of the pipelines and associated easements are anticipated to take a substantial amount of time and could drive the timing for the redevelopment of Quinault Village due to access issues. Moreover, staff would need to see details on the pipeline relocation added to the Development Agreement due to the federal law restrictions.
Area-wide storm drainage. An existing storm drainage basin is located and proposed to be retained at the northwest corner of Victory Village. Other smaller storm basins are proposed on the Quinault Village site. A storm drain pipeline will be necessary to be extended through the site to accommodate a proposed storm drainage basin proposed just east of the CNWS.
Staff has provided the mapping of the adjacent storm drainage facilities to the Applicant for incorporation into their storm drain/utility planning.
Architecture for Victory Village. The Applicant is proposing minimal rehabilitation by retaining existing roofs (reroofed in 2008), and the majority of the existing architecture and materials. The existing cement plaster stucco is proposed to be refreshed (new paint) in earth tones (beige and off-white) and dark grey. The renovation would retain the brick material at the base of the garages, which would be painted (off-white) along the front ground floor facade. Existing horizontal wood siding on Building Type 2 would be painted beige. New single garage doors would be installed and new exterior lighting, new window trim and garage trim, and new decorative accent shutters (Building Type 1 only) would be installed (see Attachment 3, Sheet BE-01 for Building Type 1 and 2 details).
Existing windows would be repaired, or new would be provided, as needed. New building number signage is proposed.
The community room is relatively small and lacking in many amenities, given the size of the overall complex.
For interior improvements, the Applicant has indicated their intent to inventory every unit and make necessary repairs or replacements to damaged or missing items, possibly including but not limited to gypsum board, paint, all flooring replaced with luxury vinyl planks, damaged casework, countertops, vanities, doors & hardware, windows, appliances, blinds, lighting, stairs, guardrails/handrails, and mechanical (HVAC) & plumbing equipment.
On November 14, staff brought the Applicant’s preliminary plans for Victory Village to the DRB for Conceptual Design Review (Attachment 7). Staff recommended more substantial improvements to the building design; however, the DRB recommended enhancing the project’s design with a focus on improving the front elevations through various treatments such as adding trellises or other
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
architectural feature above garages, a more vibrant and interesting color scheme, and eliminating shutters in favor of improved window trim profiles.
Architecture for Quinault Village. The Applicant has not provided architectural plans for the townhomes or multifamily building (Lot A) The Applicant indicated that they desire a program-level review of Quinault Village’s redevelopment in order to receive conceptual approval of the subdivided lots and building envelopes, then they would follow up with actual development plans at some unstated point in the future.
Development Agreement. On October 31, the Applicant submitted updated negotiations terms for consideration as part of the Development Agreement, which covers the proposed project, entitlements, project stages, affordable housing, cooperation, vested rights and terms (Attachment 2). The Applicant’s proposed Development Agreement terms are as follows:
• Twenty-year term which may be extended;
• Expedited entitlement review and building permit issuance for the immediate renovation of Victory Village;
• Entitlement for Quinault Village to follow completion of Victory Village, with no specific timeline or phasing for the development of Quinault Village or the affordable housing;
• Inclusionary housing requirements for both Villages to be satisfied by rental units in the multifamily development proposed for Parcel A at Quinault Village; and
• Vested right to develop the project in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies current at the time or as superseded by development standards approved under the Development Agreement.
Staff has also provided a list of questions and considerations for the Council related to the proposed Development Agreement terms below. At this time, absent Council direction and absent a formal application, staff is unable to take a position on the proposed Development Agreement terms, but notes that staff would likely identify desirable public/community benefits as the application is processed.
Open space and recreational facilities. Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Section
18.150.100 requires at least 200 square feet of private and/or open space per dwelling unit, with a minimum private open space of 60 square feet per dwelling unit. Victory Village units have balconies and private yard areas shown on the floor plans; however, dimensions are not provided on the floor plans, so staff is
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
unable to confirm if this requirement is being met. These dimensions will need to be provided with the formal application.
Quinault Village currently shows a clubhouse, pool, and two sport courts, with a pedestrian pathway throughout the site and connecting to the BART site. Quinault Village does not provide specifics for lot sizes for the townhomes to calculate required open space; these will need to be provided with formal application.
Transitional requirements. The proposed townhome units shown in proximity to the existing residences along the western edge of the site are 42 to 100 feet from the property line. The proposed multifamily building is shown 56.5 feet from the property line. The following components are proposed between the existing residences along the western edge and the proposed townhome units: a small storm drain basin (16,000 square feet), an open space area, a pedestrian walkway providing access to the BART site, and a driveway to the garages of the townhome units.
CMC Section 18.150.180 (Transitional requirements) requires buildings exceeding 30 feet in height to have a “minimum setback of 20 feet, plus one additional foot of setback for every foot building height over 30 feet, up to a maximum setback of 40 feet. Portions of the building above 30 feet may be staggered to comply with the additional setbacks.” Table 18.150.180 requires a six-foot tall fence between existing residential and proposed residential uses.
No architecture for the multifamily building or the townhomes has been provided but will be required for the formal application, including compliance with the above transitional standards.
Victory Village Parking. For residential parking, the CMC requires on-site (i.e., off-street) parking based on the type of residential use (single-family or multifamily) and unit type based on the number bedrooms. For Victory Village, the applicable multifamily parking requirement is two resident parking spaces per twobedroom unit, 2.5 resident parking spaces per four-bedroom unit, and one guest parking space per three units. Each unit must be provided at least one covered parking space. Based on these requirements, it appears Victory Village will satisfy the City’s parking requirements, as noted in Table 5 below, which compares the required parking to proposed parking for Victory Village; however, more information will be required to be submitted with the formal application to make a full determination regarding the project’s compliance with the City’s parking standards. For example, the table shows a parking deficit for 4-bedroom units that could be satisfied by parking within existing driveways; however, the driveways vary in size and must be verified for compliance with minimum parking dimensions.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Table 5
Victory Village Parking
Unit Type/Condition Required Parking Proposed*
2-Bedroom (168 units) 336 spaces (minimum
168 covered spaces)
168 covered spaces
4-Bedroom (38 units) 95 spaces (minimum 38
covered spaces)
76 covered spaces
Guest** 67 uncovered spaces 337 (244 driveway
spaces, 80 “on-street”
parking spaces, and 13
club house parking
spaces)
Total 498 (at least 206 covered
spaces)
581 (244 covered
resident spaces; 337
uncovered guest spaces)
*Parking and driveway dimensions will be verified as part of the formal application to determine if the proposed parking satisfies City standards for required parking dimensions. **Guest parking requirement applies to multifamily residential only.
Quinault Village Parking. Required parking for Quinault Village is based on the multifamily residential use proposed on Parcel A and the single-family townhomes proposed for Parcels B-D. For the townhomes, two parking spaces are required for homes with up to four bedrooms, with at least one covered space, and required parking cannot be located within the front setback area. Bedroom information was not provided for the townhomes. The parking information in Table 6 assumes a maximum of four bedrooms for the townhomes. The proposed Development Agreement requests a 25% reduction for parking requirements for Lot A parking, due to proximity to BART and providing affordable housing on that site.
Table 6
Quinault Village Parking
Unit Type/Condition Required Parking Proposed*
Single-family Residential
Townhomes (358 units) 716 spaces (min. 358
covered)
732 spaces (716
covered)
Multi-family Residential
Studio (34 units) 34 spaces (min. 34
covered)
1-Bedroom (74 units) 111 spaces (min. 74
covered)
2-Bedroom (42 units) 84 spaces (min. 42
covered)
Guest** 50 spaces
258 covered spaces
(parking garage)
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Total Multifamily 229 spaces -29 spaces
Grand Total 995 spaces (min. 558
covered)
990 spaces (974
covered)
*Parking dimensions will be verified as part of the formal application to determine if the proposed parking satisfies City standards for parking dimensions. **Guest parking requirement applies to multifamily residential only.
Feedback Sought
In addition to the topics covered above, staff has identified the following questions that Council may wish to consider and provide feedback.
1. Is the Council supportive of the renovation of the existing units at Victory Village?
2. Is the Council supportive of the redevelopment concept and densities proposed for Quinault Village?
3. What is the Council’s position on the Applicant’s proposed Development Agreement terms, and what additional topics or requirements does the Council want to include in the Development Agreement? Specific questions staff is hoping for feedback on are below:
o Inclusionary Housing: Does Council support the proposal to satisfy the project’s entire inclusionary housing requirement on Parcel A of Quinault Village? Does Council have concerns with the project’s lack of conformace to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, specifically: 1) not providing an adequate number of units and not providing an adequate depth of affordability, 2) not providing affordable ownership units, 3) not having units dispersed throughout the entire project, 4) affordable units not being of similar size to market-rate units and lots, and 5) treating the entire site as one project so that the relocation of the Victory Village inclusionary units to the Quinault location is considered “on-site?”
o Project Phasing: Is Council comfortable with the open-ended time frame for starting the redevelopment of Quinault Village and providing the project’s affordable housing?
o Development Agreement Term: Is Council open to considering the Applicant’s proposed 20-year team rather than Concord’s more traditional 10-year term for a development agreement, with the ability for mutually agreeable time extensions?
o Project Labor/Prevailing Wage Requirements: Does Council want to include any language around prevailing wages or project labor agreement(s) with unions representing local trade groups, particularly for the new construction for Quinault Village as part of the development agreement?
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
o Veteran’s Preference: Does Council want to see the Applicant’s commit to a Veteran’s preference for occupancy of the affordable units given the history of the site.
o Other Public Benefits: What other public benefits, including off-site improvements at the Navy Ballfields site or Willow Pass Park would Council encourage the Applicant’s to propose as part of their Development Agreement? (This issue came up in the June 2021 Study Session. It is important to remember that in the end for the project to occur, it will need to pencil for the property owners so public benefits need to be feasible for the project.)
4. Is Council supportive of the Applicant’s proposal to relocate the three pipelines that extend through the project?
5. Are there any other topics Council wants to weigh in on to guide the Applicant’s preparation of the formal applications?
Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this study session. Fiscal impacts of any project ultimately proposed will be evaluated as part of the project review.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the study session discussion does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2), 15262, and/or 15378 because it involves only feasibility and planning for possible future actions, and it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as it does not commit the City to a definite course of action nor are any decisions being made with respect to the 59-acre Property. Even if this activity did constitute a project under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Regs.
Section 15061(b)(3) excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment….”. Appropriate CEQA analysis will occur in connection with formal applications for the Property. Therefore, this study session does not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. Notification was mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the Property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, and the item has been published in the East
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.c
January 14, 2025
Bay Times, as required by the Concord Municipal Code. This item has also been posted at the subject site at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. In addition, the notice was provided to the Holbrook Heights Homeowners Association and the CNWS interested party list via e-mail.
Attachments
1. Coast Guard Property aerial map
2. Development Agreement negotiation points, submitted October 31, 2024
3. Concord Crossing Land Use maps, dated October 31, 2024
4. Prior staff report for June 23, 2021 former Coast Guard site Study Session
5. Background summary history of former Coast Guard site transition
6. Summary comments from June 23, 2021 City Council Study Session
7. Annotated agenda, November 14, 2024 DRB meeting-Conceptual Design Review
8. Brookfield Conceputal Land Use Diagram, dated March 2024.
9. Property Photos
10. Arborist Report, dated October 2024
11. Landscape Plans, dated October 2024
12. Building Division Site Observation, dated June 22, 2021
Attachment 1
Concord Crossing (Former Coast Guard property) aerial map Quinault
Village
Victory
Village
North
Page | 1
October 31, 2024
City of Concord
Community & Economic Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Re: Development Agreement Bullet Points
The following bullet points outline the proposed project agreement located on the former Coast Guard Property in Concord, California as it relates to the progression of a development agreement.
Proposed Project
The project site is comprised of 2 parcels on the former Coast Guard Property, approximately 59 gross acres. The site is currently zoned Military and consists of 286 residential units across the two parcels, Quinault Village to the north and Victory Village to the south. The project will seek a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Design and Site Review as the project proposes to renovate 206 units in Victory Village. All units existing on Quinault will be demolished and the redevelopment to follow will seek to provide approximately 508 units, for a grand total of 714 units across both villages/parcels. A portion of the site within Quinault Village will be dedicated to the city as public ROW and a network of greenspace and circulation networks will be provided across both villages as well.
Entitlements
The current land use for the parcels is Military, and the zoning is Public/Quasi-Public & Study. The initial entitlements sought for the projects include:
• General Plan Amendment:
o Quinault Village – Change from Military to Medium Density Residential (MDR)
o Victory Village - Change from Military to Low Density Residential (LDR) • Zoning Map Amendment:
o Quinault Village – Change from Public/Quasi Public to Residential Medium Density (RM)
o Victory Village - Change from Public/Quasi Public to Residential Low Density (RL)
• Design and Site Review:
o Quinault Village – As this parcel will involve a program level review, a Design and Site Review application for Quinault Village will not be applied for at this time.
o Victory Village – An application will be filed in order to renovate and occupy the existing buildings and units (206). Zoning and code discrepancies that arise from the constructed project regulations to current regulations shall Attachment 2
Page | 2
default to the underlying entitlements, ie. parking be accepted that was conforming at the time of construction, multifamily use within the current RL density range, etc.
Project Stages
The project is projected to follow the general outline below:
• Victory Village will be renovated immediately following entitlement approvals and subsequent building permit approvals. The project requests expedited approvals to halt the property degradation as quickly as possible and reduce the cost of renovation to allow repopulation as quickly as possible. • Following program level entitlements, Quinault Village to be entitled as soon as possible with a separate Design and Site Review, and subsequent mapping.
Construction to commence immediately following entitlement approval and building permit approvals. Development of Lot A (affordable housing) and Lots B-D to follow no specific timeline or phasing relative to one another.
Affordable Housing
The overall finished project seeks to provide approximately 714 units between both villages/parcels. The northernmost lot (Lot A), which is located directly adjacent to the BART station lot to provide the greatest value for both the affordable units and transit use, will contain the entirety of the affordable housing for both villages at no less than 15% of the total units. The client intends on selling Lot A to a specialist affordable housing developer to optimize the operation of affordable housing for the project. The income mix will be 7.5% low income and 7.5% or greater to be moderate income. The remainder of units on Lot A will be market rate rentals. It is requested that the Lot A development receive a reduction in required parking, similar to the 25% reduction for non-residential development, due to it’s proximity to the BART station.
Cooperation
Future work on development and planning of the neighboring Naval property shall consider the public amenities provided by the project. Likewise, the developer will coordinate the best interests of neighboring sites in subsequent applications, but share in future benefits or reduced fees that occur.
Vested Rights
The developer shall have the right to develop the project site in accordance with the project approvals and provisions of this development agreement and the rules, regulations, and policies current at the time of the DA’s approval. Adoption of new rules, regulations and policies will only apply to the extent they will not modify, prevent, or impede development of the project.
Terms
The initial term of this DA is 20 years subject to an extension due to delays outside the control of the Developer, including but not limited to cost of construction and market conditions, the inability to relocate oil/gas easements given the intent for the pipelines to be re-routed around the subject property, resource agency permitting delays, environmental constraints, or AHJ delays.
N
0' 100' 200' 400'
OLIVERA ROAD
HAMILTON AVE
SITE INFORMATION
PARCEL NUMBER(S) 111-010-023-5
ADDRESS 3295 HALEAKALA ST CONCORD, CA 94519
JUSRISDICTION CITY OF CONCORD
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MILITARY (CURRENT)
MEDIUM & LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PROPOSED)
ZONING CLASSIFICATION S & PQP (CURRENT)
RL & RM (PROPOSED)
SITE AREA 59.4 ACRES (2,587,987 SF)
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
SHEET
NO. SHEET TITLE
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
2024-10-14
CONCEPT PLAN REV1
2024-10-31
T-01 TITLE SHEET ● ●
BE-01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS ●
CP-01 CONTEXTUAL PLAN ●
SP-01 MASTERPLAN HIGHLIGHTS ● ●
SP-02 QUINAULT VILLAGE HIGHLIGHTS ● ●
SP-03 QUINAULT VILLAGE SITE PLAN ● ●
SP-04 VICTORY VILLAGE HIGHLIGHTS ● ●
SP-05 VICTORY VILLAGE SITE PLAN ● ●
SP-06 DIAGRAMMATIC SITE PLAN ● ●
L-01 LANDSCAPE PLAN ●
P-01 SITE PHOTOS ●
RD-01 BUILDING RENDERING OPTION ●
RD-02 BUILDING RENDERING OPTION ●
RD-03 BUILDING RENDERING OPTION ●
RD-04 BUILDING RENDERING OPTION ●
RD-05 BUILDING RENDERING OPTION ●
TS-01 TREE SURVEY ●
80 80
85 80
80 80
85 85
85 80
80 85
58 80
80 75
85 85
85 85
80 85
85 80
80 75
80 80
85 85
85 80
80 80
75 75
70 70
75 75
70 65
70 75
80 70
470' - 1 1/8"
ADJACENT PARCEL
APN: 111-010-026
LAND USE: CRPTOD & CRPNB, REFER TO MAP BELOW
ZONING: S - STUDY DISTRICT
ADJACENT PARCELS (32)
LAND USE: LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING : RS6 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT PARCEL
APN: 111-010-012
LAND USE: P - PARKS AND RECREATION
ZONING : PR - PARKS AND RECREATION
ADJACENT PARCEL
APN: 111-010-015
LAND USE: P - PARKS AND RECREATION
ZONING : PR - PARKS AND RECREATION
ADJACENT PARCEL
APN: 111-010-021
LAND USE: CRPTOD, REFER TO MAP BELOW
ZONING : S - STUDY DISTRICT
HYBRID LAND USE PLAN:
2030 LAND USE DIAGRAM & AREA PLAN DIAGRAM
QUINAULT VILLAGE
VICTORY VILLAGE
EAST OLIVERA ROAD
MT HOOD CIR
MAUNA KEA CT
HALEKALA ST
PYRA ST
KISKA CT
HAMILTON AVE
ENTERPRISE CT
SWALE
DETENTION
BASIN
16'-6" OIL PIPELINE
EASEMENT,
EXISTING TO BE
RELOCATED
16'-6" OIL PIPELINE
EASEMENTS,
EXISITNG TO BE
RELOCATED
20' WATER PIPELINE
EASEMENT
FUTURE PARCEL
LINE
CONTEXTUAL PLAN NOTES
1. ALL BUILDINGS OR BUILDING PADS WITHIN VICTORY
VILLAGE TO REMAIN.
2. VICTORY VILLAGE APARTMENTS ARE 2 LEVELS WITH
A 1 LEVEL OFFICE/COMMUNITY BUILDING
3. QUINALT VILLAGE BUILDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED.
0'
N
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 50' 100' 200'
SCALE: As indicated
2024.10.14
CONTEXTUAL PLAN CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
CP-01
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1
SITE PLAN - CONTEXT
QUINAULT VILLAGE
508 UNITS
29.2 NET ACRES
17.4 DU/AC
VICTORY VILLAGE
206 RESIDENCES
25.8 NET ACRES
8.0 DU/AC
GRAND TOTAL
714 RESIDENCES
55 NET ACRES
13 DU/AC
LEGEND
APARTMENT UNITS
TOWNHOME RESIDENCES
DUPLEX RESIDENCES
COMMUNITY CENTER
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-01 0 60 120 240
MASTERPLAN HIGHLIGHTS
CONCEPT HIGHLIGHTS
QUINAULT VILLAGE VICTORY VILLAGE
LOT A
150 UNITS
3.7 ACRES
40.5 DU/AC
LOTS B-D
358 RESIDENCES
25.5 ACRES
14 DU/AC
QV TOTAL
508 RESIDENCES
29.2 NET ACRES
17.4 DU/AC
LEGEND NOTES
- LOT A: SOLD & OPERATED BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPER, 107 AFFORDABLE UNITS = 15% OF 714
- LOTS B-D: TOWNHOME/DUPLEX: MIX OF 2 & 3 LEVEL,
ALLEY & FRONT LOADED RESIDENCES
- MAIN DRIVE (4.4 ACRES) DEDICATED ROW
150 APARTMENT UNITS - 4 LEVEL BLDG.
358 2 & 3 LEVEL TOWNHOME RESIDENCES
COMMUNITY CENTER & AMENITIES
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-02 0 60 120 240
QUINAULT VILLAGE HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS QUINAULT VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
A B
C
D
QUINAULT VILLAGE VICTORY VILLAGE
103'-0"
57'-0"
13'-0"
55'-6"
37'-0"
10'-0"
13'-0"
13'-6"
22'-6"
1/2 MILE FROM BART GATES
EXISTING OIL PIPELINES
(REROUTED)
EXISTING OIL PIPELINE
(REROUTED)
EXISTING WATER
PIPELINE TO REMAIN
REROUTED OIL
PIPELINES,
UNDER >4' FILL
WHERE WITHIN 50'
OF BUILDINGS
64'-0"
A1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 CLUBHOUSE
C12
C13
C14 D1
D3 D2
D4 D5
D6 D7
D8
D12
D9
D10
D11 D15
D14 D13
D18
D17
D16
D20 D21
D19 D22
D23
D24 D25
B34
B33
B32
B24
B25
B31 B30
B26
B22 B23
B27
B29 B28
B20
B18 B21 B17
B16
B13 B14 B15
B8
B7 B6
B12
B2 B3 B4 B5
B9 B10 B11
B1
68'-0"
68'-0"
AVG.
7'-0"
AVG.
12'-0"
8'-0"
10'-0"
9'-6"
73'-6"
27'-0"
29'-0"
5'-0"
28'-0"
28'-0"
36'-0"
LOT A
QUINAULT VILLAGE
VICTORY VILLAGE
15'-0" 11'-0"
11'-0"
19'-0"
UNITS NOT INCLUDED IN
TABULATIONS BELOW
LOT B
LOT C
LOT D
B19
42'-6"
40'-0"
56'-6"
25'-0"
BASIN -
14,000 SF
BASIN -
16,000 SF
D26
PARKING INFO. (CONCEPT)
PARKING - PER CONCORD TITLE 18
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED
LOT A (EST.):
MF STUDIO - 34 @ 1/1B UNIT 34 SPACES
MF 1 BED - 74 @ 1.5/1B UNIT 111 SPACES
MF 2 BED - 42 @ 2/2B UNIT 84 SPACES
GUEST @ 1 PER 3 UNITS 50 SPACES
AMENITY SPACES & OFFICE ANCILLARY
279 SPACES
LOTS B-D:
SF 358 @ 2/ RESIDENCE
716 GARAGE SPACES
AMENITY, OFFICE, GUEST ANCILLARY
716 SPACES
TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED
LOT A:
STANDARD SPACES (9'x19') 220 SPACES
COMPACT SPACES (8'x16') 32 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE SPACES (17'X19') 6 SPACES
258 SPACES
LOTS B-D:
DOUBLE GARAGE 716 SPACES
STANDARD SPACES (9'x19') 15 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE SPACES (17'X19') 1 SPACE
732 SPACES
+
PARALLEL SPACES - PRIVATE ST 114 SPACES
PARALLEL SPACES - PUBLIC ST 175 SPACES
1,021 SPACES
BUILDING INFO. (CONCEPT)
LOT A - 3.7 ACRES
4 LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH CLUBHOUSE
UNIT TABULATIONS (EST.)
MIX OF STUDIO, 1 & 2 BEDROOM
150 UNITS
DENSITY
150 UNITS/3.7 ACRES 40.5 DU/AC
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
COMMON @ 140 SF
PRIVATE @ 60 SF EACH UNIT
AMENITIES
COMMUNITY CENTER & OFFICE 10,000 SF
LOTS B-D - 25.5 ACRES
UNIT TABULATIONS
TOWNHOMES (ALLEY LOAD) 311 UNITS
TOWNHOMES (STREET LOAD) 47 UNITS
358 UNITS
DENSITY
358 UNITS/25.5 ACRES 14 DU/AC
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
COMMON @ 140 SF
PRIVATE @ 60 SF EACH UNIT
AMENITIES
COMMUNITY CENTER 6,000 SF
SITE INFORMATION
PARCEL NUMBER 111-010-023
JUSRISDICTION CONCORD
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MILITARY (CURRENT)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PROPOSED)
ZONING CLASSIFICATION S & PQP (CURRENT)
RM (PROPOSED)
SITE AREA 33.6 ACRES (1,463,090 SF) GROSS
4.4 ACRES ROW
29.2 ACRES NET
RESIDENTIAL UNITS 508 UNITS
17.4 DU/AC
0'
N Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 4.5' 9' 18'
SCALE: As indicated
14 OCTOBER 2024
QUINAULT VILLAGE SITE PLAN CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180 SP-03
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1 SITE PLAN - QUINAULT VILLAGE
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-03 0 50 100 200
QUNAULT VILLAGE SITE PLAN
VV TOTAL
206 RESIDENCES
25.8 NET ACRES
8.0 DU/AC
LEGEND NOTES
- AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUOTA TO BE MET BY QUINAULT
VILLAGE LOT A DEVELOPMENT
- GATED COMMUNITY WITH PRIVATE STREET NETWORK
36 APARTMENT BUILDINGS - TYPE 1
7 APARTMENT BUILDINGS - TYPE 2
LEASING OFFICE & AMENITIES
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-04 0 60 120 240
VICTORY VILLAGE HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS VICTORY VILLAGE RENOVATION
QUINAULT VILLAGE VICTORY VILLAGE
QUINAULT VILLAGE VICTORY VILLAGE
PRIVATE
YARD FENCE,
TYP. (E)
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
H
O
MES
OFFICE &
COMMUNITY
BUILDING
EAST OLIVERA ROAD
HAMILTON
AVE
ACCESS GATE (E)
ACCESS GATE (E)
SWALE
20' FIRE LANE,
TYP.
V1
BASIN -
50,000 SF
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
MT HOOD CIR
MAUNA KEA CT
HALEKALA ST
PYRA ST
MARS
ST
KISKA CT
REFURBISHED
SIDEWALK
V2
V3
V4
V25
V26
V17
V18
V19
V20
V43
V42
V38
V22
V21
V23
V5
V34
V35 V15
V37
V6
V7 V27
V9
V10
V11 V12
V33
V13
V14
V36 V16
V41
V28
V32
V31
V30 V29
V8
V40
V39
V24
57'-0"(E)
67'-0"(E)
101'-0"(E)
30'-0" 30'-0"
60'-0"
(E)
40'-0"
16'-0"
SITE INFORMATION
PARCEL NUMBER 111-010-023
JUSRISDICTION CONCORD
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MILITARY (CURRENT)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PROPOSED)
ZONING CLASSIFICATION S & PQP (CURRENT)
RM (PROPOSED)
SITE AREA 33.6 ACRES (1,463,090 SF) GROSS
4.4 ACRES ROW
29.2 ACRES NET
BUILDING INFORMATION
VICTORY VILLAGE - 25.8 ACRES
ALL APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE 2 LEVELS
UNIT TABULATIONS
2 BEDROOM 168 UNITS
4 BEDROOM 38 UNITS
206 UNITS
DENSITY
206 UNITS/25.8 ACRES 8.0 DU/AC
BUILDING TYPES
BUILDING TYPE 1A (13 BLDGS @ 6,800 SF)
2 BEDROOM (6 UNITS PER BLDG)
TOTAL: 88,400 SF
BUILDING TYPE 1B (8 @ 6,800 SF)
2 BEDROOM (4) 1,110 SF
4 BEDROOM (1) 2,360 SF
TOTAL: 54,400 SF
BUILDING TYPE 1C (15 @ 6,800 SF)
2 BEDROOM (2) 1,110 SF
4 BEDROOM (2) 2,290 SF
TOTAL: 102,000 SF
BUILDING TYPE 2 (7 @ 4,720 SF)
2 BEDROOM (4) 1,180 SF
TOTAL: 33,040 SF
AMENITIES
COMMUNITY CENTER & OFFICE 2,100 SF
PARKING INFORMATION
PARKING - PER CONCORD TITLE 18
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED
VICTORY VILLAGE:
MULTIFAMILY @ 2/2B UNIT 336 SPACES
MULTIFAMILY @ 2.5/4B UNIT 95 SPACES
GUEST @ 1 PER 3 UNITS 69 SPACES
AMENITY SPACES & OFFICE ANCILLARY
500 SPACES
TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED
VICTORY VILLAGE:
GARAGE (10'x25') 244 SPACES
TANDEM TO GARAGE (10'x19') 244 SPACES
STANDARD SPACES (9'x19') 11 SPACES
PARALLEL SPACES (9'x24') 80 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE SPACES (17'X19') 2 SPACES
581 SPACES
145 ALLOWABLE TANDEM (OF 244)
(25% OF 581) -99 SPACES
482 SPACES
BICYLE PARKING
BICYCLES ACCOMMODATED FOR IN GARAGES.
BIKE RACK PROVIDED AT OFFICE
0'
N Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 4.5' 9' 18'
SCALE: As indicated
14 OCTOBER 2024
VICTORY VILLAGE SITE PLAN CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
SP-05
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1 SITE PLAN - VICTORY VILLAGE
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-05 0
VICTORY VILLAGE SITE PLAN
50 100 200
TRAVEL LANE
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPE &
FURNISHINGS
6'-0" 5'-6" 7'-6" 5'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 5'-0" 7'-6" 5'-6" 6'-0" ON-STREET PARKING 11'-0"
BACK OF CURB
46'-0" 11'-0" TRAVEL LANE ON-STREET PARKING LANDSCAPE & FURNISHINGS SIDEWALK
CLASS II BIKE PATHCLASS II BIKE PATH
68'-0" R.O.W.
0'
N Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 4.5' 9' 18'
08/13/24
SP-06
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1 SITE PLAN - P2 diagrammatic
LEGEND
QV LOT A 3.7 acres
QV LOT B 10.7 acres
QV LOT C 7.0 acres
QV LOT D 7.8 acres
68’ PUBLIC ROW 4.4 acres
VICTORY VILLAGE 25.8 acres
MAIN PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION - VV TO BART
BIO-RETENTION BASIN
PLAYGROUND, COURT, OR GATHERING AREA
68’ STREET SECTION
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
SP-06 0
DIAGRAMMATIC SITE PLAN`
DIAGRAMMATIC PLAN
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 1
2 50 100 200
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 3 MARCH 2023
SITE PHOTOS CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
P-01
VICTORY
VILLAGE
QUINAULT
VILLAGE
VICTORY
VILLAGE
QUINAULT
VILLAGE
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
P-01
SITE PHOTOS
1 BE-03
2 BE-03
3 BE-03
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
PRIVATE
YARD
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
PRIVATE
YARD
UNIT 1A-1
1,180SF
UNIT 1A-2
1,180SF
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
LIVING
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BALCONY
BALCONYBALCONY
BALCONY
KITCHEN
DINING KITCHEN
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
UNIT 1A-4
1,110SF
UNIT 1A-5
1,110SF
UNIT 1A-6
1,110SF UNIT 1A-3
1,110SF
2 BE-03
1 BE-03
3 BE-03
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
PRIVATE
YARD
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
PRIVATE
YARD
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
UNIT 1B-1
2,360 SF
2 BE-03
1 BE-03
3 BE-03
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM KITCHEN
LIVING
ROOM
BALCONY
BALCONY
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
KITCHEN LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
KITCHEN
BALCONY
BALCONY
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
UNIT 1B-3
1,110 SF
UNIT 1B-2
1,110 SF
UNIT 1B-4
1,110 SF
UNIT 1B-5
1,110 SF
2 BE-03
1 BE-03
3 BE-03
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 0' 4.5' 9' 18'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 MARCH 2023
FLOOR PLANS CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
FP-02
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1A - LEVEL 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1A - LEVEL 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1B - LEVEL 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1B - LEVEL 2
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
FP-01 0 4 8 16
VICTORY VILLAGE FLOOR PLANS
4 BE-03
5 BE-03
6 BE-03
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
PRIVATE
YARD
PRIVATE
YARD
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
UNIT 2-1
1,180SF
UNIT 2-2
1,180SF
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM BEDROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
LIVING
ROOM
BALCONY BALCONY
UNIT 2-3
1,180SF
UNIT 2-4
1,180SF
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BREAKFAST
NOOK
BEDROOM KITCHEN
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
KITCHEN
BREAKFAST
NOOK
BEDROOM
GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
PRIVATE
YARD
PRIVATE
UNIT 1C-1 YARD
2,290SF
UNIT 1C-2
2,290SF
2 BE-03
1 BE-03
3 BE-03
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
DEN DEN
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
KITCHEN
BALCONY BALCONY
UNIT 1C-3
1,110SF
BALCONYBALCONY
UNIT 1C-4
1,110SF
2 BE-03
1 BE-03
3 BE-03
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 0' 4.5' 9' 18'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 MARCH 2023
FLOOR PLANS CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
FP-03
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 2 - LEVEL 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 2 - LEVEL 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1C - LEVEL 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 VICTORY VILLAGE - TYPE 1C - LEVEL 2
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
FP-02 0 4 8 16
VICTORY VILLAGE FLOOR PLANS
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
109' - 0"
BUILDING HEIGHT
EXISTING
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING 11 OCTOBER 2024
BUILDING ELEVATIONS CONCORD | CALIFORNIA 2021180
BE-01
NEW TRIM, TYPICAL.
NEW DECORATIVE EXTERIOR
WINDOW SHUTTERS, TYPICAL.
NEW GARAGE DOOR, TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
TYPICAL.
NEW EXTERIOR
LIGHT SCONCES.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING ACCENT
MATERIAL, TYPICAL.
EXISTING WINDOW. REPAIR
OR PROVIDE NEW WHERE
NECESSARY.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY.
EXISTING WINDOW. REPAIR
OR PROVIDE NEW WHERE
NECESSARY.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
ACCENT MATERIAL,
TYPICAL.
NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT
SCONCES.
NEW GARAGE DOOR,
TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
TYPICAL.
NEW DECORATIVE
EXTERIOR WINDOW
SHUTTERS, TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO FINISH. STUCCO TO
BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
EXISTING WINDOW. REPAIR
OR PROVIDE NEW WHERE
NECESSARY.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO FINISH. STUCCO TO
BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO FINISH. STUCCO TO
BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW TRIM, TYPICAL.
NEW DECORATIVE EXTERIOR
WINDOW SHUTTERS, TYPICAL.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 BUILDING TYPE 1 - BACK ELEVATION
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
RAILING. RAILING TO BE
REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING RAILING.
RAILING TO BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
RAILING. RAILING TO BE
REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
EXISTING WINDOW. REPAIR
OR PROVIDE NEW WHERE
NECESSARY.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING RAILING.
RAILING TO BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW TRIM, TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING RAILING.
RAILING TO BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
EXISTING ROOF. REPAIR
WHERE NECESSARY.
TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING STUCCO
FINISH. STUCCO TO BE REPAIRED
WHERE NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING RAILING.
RAILING TO BE REPAIRED WHERE
NECESSARY. TYPICAL.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 BUILDING TYPE 1 - FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 BUILDING TYPE 1 - TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 BUILDING TYPE 2 - FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING TYPE 2 - BACK ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING TYPE 2 - TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
ACCENT MATERIAL - OFF WHITE
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO - BEIGE
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO - OFF WHITE
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
STUCCO - DARK GREY
NEW PAINT ON EXISTING
ACCENT MATERIAL - BEIGE
EXISTING ROOF
NEW BUILDING N UMBER
SIGNAGE
NEW BUILDING
NUMBER SIGNAGE
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
BE-01
VICTORY VILLAGE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
RD-01
RENDER: BUILDING TYPE 1 - VARIATION A
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
RD-02
RENDER: BUILDING TYPE 1 - VARIATION B
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
RD-03
RENDER: BUILDING TYPE 1 - VARIATION C
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
RD-04
RENDER: BUILDING TYPE 2 - VARIATION A
Q VILLAGE LLC - CONCORD CROSSING
CONCORD | CALIFORNIA
2024.10.31
2021180
RD-05
RENDER: BUILDING TYPE 2 - VARIATION B
Staff Report
Date: June 23, 2021
To: City Council
Prepared by: Joan Ryan, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3370
Reviewed by: Andrea Ouse, Director of Community Development Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Subject: Considering the preliminary development proposal application for the former Coast Guard Property site at this study
session/special meeting and providing early feedback to the property owners and staff for incorporation into the owners’ formal entitlement applications for the Coast Guard site located at 3295 Haleakala Street (APNs: 111-010-006 and a portion of 111-010-014).
CEQA: Not a project per Public Resources Code 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and/or 15061(b)(3).
Report in Brief
On June 3, 2021, the successful bidders of the General Services Administration (GSA) auction closed escrow on the 59-acre Coast Guard property at 3295 Haleakala Street (APNs 111-010-006 and a portion of 1111-010-014) (“Property”) (Attachment 2 is a location map). The new owners (Eddie Haddid and Georges Maalouf, referred to herein as “owners” or “developer”) have submitted a preliminary application to renovate the existing 286 on-site units (Attachment 1).
The owners have requested an expeditious process and, consistent with Development Code Section 18.405.040, staff determined this Study Session was the best pathway to:
1) provide a public forum in which the owners can communicate their plans for the Property;
2) enable the Concord community and stakeholders to provide feedback; and
3.a
Attachment 4
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
3) Enable the Council to give direction to staff and the new owners.
The objective of this Study Session/Special Council Meeting is to allow the Council to provide the owners information and direction to consider before preparing and submitting a formal application for the Property. The structure of tonight’s study session is intended to achieve the following:
Provide background on the City’s entitlement process, anticipated timelines and range of development densities;
Provide a presentation by the owners on their initial plans for the Property; Allow the Council and the public to review prior preliminary concepts for the site and consider options for moving forward;
Allow the community to give feedback on the owners’ Preliminary Application through public comment; and
Provide an opportunity for the City Council to provide early feedback to the owners and staff for incorporation into the formal entitlement applications for the Property.
Recommended Action
Consider the preliminary development proposal application for the former Coast Guard Property site at this study session/special meeting and provide early feedback to the property owners and staff for incorporation into the owners’ formal entitlement applications for the Coast Guard site located at 3295 Haleakala Street (APNs: 111-010- 006 and a portion of 111-010-014).
Background
In 2007, as part of federal to federal agency transfers under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), the U.S. Navy transferred 58 acres (Property) of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The Property is located contiguous to and south of the North Concord/ Martinez BART station and immediately east of Olivera Road (Attachment 1). The USCG used the existing military housing units on the Property to house enlisted personnel who worked on Coast Guard Island in Alameda until 2014 when they vacated the buildings. The existing housing on site had been constructed in two phases: Quinault Village (80 units in duplexes on the northern portion of the Property) and Victory Village (206 units in multifamily housing on the southern portion of the Property). Additional history regarding the Coast Guard Property is included as Attachment 3.
The Coast Guard Property was included in the land use plans prepared by the former master developer of the Concord Naval Weapon Station. A land use diagram detailing the intended use of the Coast Guard Property and the former base was prepared based on the master developer’s assessment of market feasibility and reviewed by staff beginning in early 2017. The land use diagram was also vetted and revised based upon
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
community input at numerous neighborhood and community meetings as well as the Community Advisory Committee meetings through 2018. On August 22, 2018, the City Council considered the land use diagram and directed that a Draft Specific Plan be prepared based on this land use diagram. A copy of the land use diagram is included as Attachment 4. The development contemplated by the Draft Specific Plan included:
- 800 new units on the Property
- High density nearest to the BART station gradually decreasing to medium density to the south with a green buffer along the western edge and between the villages.
- Bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular access via a street and trail network that linked to BART and the Concord Reuse Project open space network.
On September 25, 2018, as part of the master developer selection process for the Coast Guard Property, the City Council reviewed and considered four proposals from interested developers. DeNova Homes was selected as the master developer and entered into negotiations with the City on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for development of the site in coordination with offering a bid to the GSA to purchase the Property.
The development concept that was proposed by DeNova (Attachment 5) contemplated affordable housing units for seniors, veterans, and families with some units at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The conceptual unit breakdown, which ranged from a total of 745 to 800 units (density of 19.7-21 du/net acre), contemplated by DeNova included:
170-185 Affordable Multifamily rental housing units
270-280 Market Rate Multifamily units (ownership and rentals) 130-150 Market Rate Townhome Row ownership houses
175-185 Small lot, market rate single-family detached ownership units with five units being dedicated to a non-profit, Home Aid Northern California/Contra Costa County Veterans (who would own and operate these five units).
Other public benefits stated in the submittal included a trail system, park/open space (15 acres) improvements (on and off site), bike trails, offsite improvements to Willow Pass Community Park, and exploration of Innovative Transportation Solutions and Technology 1 concepts.
1 Innovative Transportation Solutions and Technology concepts are committed toward looking differently at the transportation process and create more efficient and cost effective solutions, which may include different types of electronic methods and sensors to collect data. Insights from that data are used to manage assets, resources and services efficiently, which in turn can improve operations across the City.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
Although the City provided an initial and revised offer to the GSA to purchase the Property, the GSA declined the City’s offer, in favor of pursuing a public sale.
On September 10, 2020, to facilitate the sale of the Property, the GSA published an Invitation for Bids and commenced a public auction on October 15, 2020, with a starting minimum bid of $15 million. Prior to the publication of GSA’s Invitation for Bids, the City had posted a variety of information on the City’s website, specific to the Coast Guard site including the City’s goals for the property, existing General Plan and zoning designations, the anticipated entitlement path, prior redevelopment diagrams/analysis and ARUP and other technical memos regarding utilities which was available to all bidders and which was also linked to the GSA’s Invitation for Bids. In addition, similar information was provided to the new owners during the 5-month auction, via e-mail on December 9, 2020, and during a conference call requested with staff in December 2020/January 2021.
On March 3, 2021, after almost 5 months, a final bidder was successful in outbidding other interested parties for the Property with a final bid of $58.4 million. Following the conclusion of the auction, the GSA opened escrow and a 90-day closing period was established for the two parties to complete the necessary documents and close the transaction. On June 3, 2021, the transaction closed and the transfer of the property was completed. Since that time, the owners have been focused on securing the site and buildings, along with performing necessary landscape maintenance.
Site Description
A. Existing Property Improvements
According to the GSA property description, the site consists of two villages:
Quinault Village (northern village): 40 duplex buildings (80 housing units). - 3 bedroom, 2 bath (64) and 4 bedroom, 2 bath (16) units. - Unit sizes ranging 1,059 to 1,245 sq. ft.
- Constructed in 1965
- Community center and tot lot playground
Victory Village (southern village): 42 apartment style buildings (206 units) including four-bedroom units (30 townhouse style, eight side by side). All apartments are configured in four-plex or six-plex buildings. - 2 bedroom, 1 bath (168) and 4 bedroom, 2 bath (38) units - Unit sizes range from 968-992 (2 BR) and 1,960 to 1,984 sq. ft. (4 BR) - Built in 1989
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
- Small playground, basketball court, horseshoe pit and RV storage.
Because the military does not have to comply with State Building Code requirements, none of the units were built to existing California Building Code, and they were likely not built to the local building codes that existed at the time of their construction. It is yet to be determined what federal or military standards the units were constructed under. If they were not built to “federal” standards at the time that would mean they were in violation of the current applicable code when they were built. The City would not have a way to verify that now, unless the owners have records of the construction meeting those requirements.
However, the City’s Building Division has a site visit scheduled for June 22 at which time a sampling of units will be inspected for health and safety items under the current code and reviewed for any items considered substandard or dangerous, which the City can require to be corrected regardless of what code the units were or weren’t built under. The inspection was planned to assist the owners in understanding the scope of work of the renovation and prioritizing the work that will be necessary.
The current General Plan land use designation is Military (M) and the zoning designation is Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) and thus for any development, redevelopment, or renovation of the site, both a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning would be necessary as the Property is now in private ownership. In addition, depending upon the project proposal, and the zoning district selected or created for the proposed rezoning, additional entitlements would be required such as Design and Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, Variance and/or Minor Exception. The City included this information within a Coast Guard site summary sheet (Attachment 6) along with additional information including the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan diagram (Attachment 7) that was provided on the City’s website (Planning Division-Coast Guard page) upon initiation of the GSA’s Invitation for Bids. All bidders who inquired were sent a link.
B. Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject 59-acre site is uniquely shaped and consists of two parcels bounded on the west side by existing residences in the Holbrook Heights neighborhood, on the north by the North Concord/Martinez BART Station parking lot, and on the east and south by the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Easements accommodating three oil pipelines run through the site, located approximately between the two villages, and were granted in 1956, 1957, and 1969 to Union Oil Company, Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, and Getty Oil Company. These pipelines are active and currently operated by Phillips 66 Pipeline, Kinder Morgan/SFPP and Shell Pipeline. State law imposes some restrictions that would preclude inhabiting land within 50 feet of these pipelines, depending on their depth. See Attachment 8 for the ARUP technical memo, dated November 8, 2017 on this issue.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
A variety of eucalyptus trees, shrubs and dry grass exists on the property, which is currently enclosed with chain link fencing around the perimeter of the Property.
The public right-of-way along East Olivera Road includes street trees within the public right-of-way, now the responsibility of the owners. Photos of the site and units are included in Attachment 9.
Access to the Property is provided by two gated driveways within Quinault Village at Hamilton Avenue (north and south) and by two gated driveways within Victory Village at Pyro Street and Mars Street. Infrastructure within the site includes sewer, water, electric, gas and storm water; a technical memo and map is attached (Attachment 10). Staff provided two summaries to the owner; one from the City’s engineering division and one from Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), describing the required utility and street improvements necessary to address both a renovation scenario and a demolition and new build scenario (Attachments 11 and 12).
The Property was inspected in 2014 in anticipation of transfer, and Phase 1 studies were prepared by TetraTech 2 evaluating the environmental conditions of each village. Findings from the Phase 1 evaluation of note included the following:
In Victory Village, the inspection revealed the use of asbestos in the building materials.
The report also detailed the possibility of munitions and unexploded ordinance of concern found at the southern boundary of the site (adjacent to the old airfield site where anomalies have also been discovered). In Quinault Village, asbestos and lead hazards were identified in both the interior and exterior of the buildings as well as pesticide contamination.
The study recommended that, upon transfer of the property, the deed contain a restriction that would advise against children or pets disturbing the soil and that no digging or planting occur near foundations. Both reports recommend that subsequent owners search for contamination and coordinate these efforts with the Navy based upon the remediation of the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Housing Element Update
In the City’s current adopted Housing Element, the Coast Guard property was identified as having open space and large common yard areas that offered the potential for reuse with transit-oriented development. This potential was not included in the quantified site inventory; meaning, a specific number of units on the Coast Guard site were not identified in the Housing Element for purposes of meeting the City’s past Regional 2 Page 2-1 of the Phase 1 studies (Sept. 2016) indicates “Use of this report by any parties other than Tetra Tech, GSA, and USCG is expressly prohibited.” Thus, the new owners will need to perform new studies, unless a release was provided by the GSA.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), due to the need for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning action3. However, it should be noted that the Property will likely be critical in meeting the City’s most recent RHNA that is required to be accommodated in the next Housing Element update.
The City is in the early stages of initiating its Housing Element Update (“HE Update”) for the upcoming sixth cycle (2023-2031), which will begin in August 2021. Council will receive an update on this process on June 22, 2021. Pursuant to State law, the City is required to demonstrate, through its upcoming HE Update that it has adequate capacity for its RHNA allocation for all income categories during that planning period.
On May 20, 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board approved the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations for all Bay Area cities and counties, including an allocation of 5,073 dwelling units for Concord. The following table shows how the City’s RHNA is divided into four income categories, along with a comparison to the prior RHNA:
Table 1
New RHNA Numbers
Most jurisdictions have seen large increases from their fifth-cycle RHNA due to a 135% increase in the Bay Area’s RHNA number.
While the City’s RHNA is 5,073 housing units, State law is requiring a buffer for identifying adequate housing sites; therefore, the City will have to plan on accommodating closer to 6,500 housing units. While the community has not had the opportunity to determine where and how these units will be accommodated within the City, the Coast Guard Property represents a significant opportunity for inclusion as a future housing site within the Housing Element property inventory with the potential to accommodate between 15% to 20% of the required RHNA, depending on the desired density for the Property.
3 The prior 2010 Housing Element indicated that previously the Coast Guard site was intended for rezoning to allow 470 units.
However, in letters to HCD dated October 6, 2005 and July 14, 2006, the City communicated its intention to rezone other sites (Renaissance, Wisteria, Hidden Grove, etc.) in place of the Coast Guard housing site, once City realized the Coast Guard site would not be in its control.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
As noted above, the HE Update must find appropriately-zoned property to carry the capacity of Concord’s total allocation of 6,500 units. It will be challenging to find an adequate amount of property with a likelihood of developing enough housing to meeting Concord’s regional need prior to 2031 as required by State law. If the Coast Guard property is approved with a lower unit density than previously anticipated, this will require the Housing Element effort to consider zoning other areas of the City at higher densities and/or other options that may be viewed as less-favorable to accommodate the required number of allocated housing units.
Coast Guard Site - Preliminary Concepts
The City has significant discretion in reviewing this project because it requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, due to the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. All preliminary concepts discussed below would require a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design and Site Review and associated applications, dependent upon the scope of the proposal. In addition, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental review would be necessary, and as stated in the Coast Guard summary sheet provided during the public sale process, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is anticipated to be the necessary level of review because of the required legislative actions4. Due to the nature of the legislative actions, the Council may wish to consider public benefits that may be derived from any of the development concepts.
Staff has described below a range of possibilities for the site for discussion purposes, including the applicant’s preliminary proposal. A brief summary is included below along with a table providing a review of densities, and number of units that would be possible for each.
1. Renovation (Owners’ Proposed Approach) - On May 28, 2021, in anticipation of the property transfer, Peter Ziblatt, attorney for the owners, submitted a preliminary application for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment (Attachment 1). Based on their project description, the 286 units at the site would be renovated as rental units, providing repairs where needed based on an assessment of the units. The application indicates they will be working with PG&E to upgrade transformers at the site and with CCWD to continue water service to the site. Tenant improvements to the units themselves have been indicated as “water heaters, appliances, cabinets, flooring, cosmetics”, as well as repairs to three fire-damaged buildings. In terms of affordability, the owners indicated they would follow the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and provide 28 units for low-income households (10%) or provide 17 units to very low income households. 4 General Plan Amendment and Rezones are legislative actions.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
The owners indicate that all streets would remain private and they will explore pedestrian connectivity to the BART station for future residents of the Property. In addition, owners have indicated that maintenance to the utility systems will be needed, and some of the water infrastructure will need to be decoupled at the water meter near the baseball fields across East Olivera to separate service for the baseball fields and service to the Naval Weapons Station to the southeast.
Based on the stated interest of the owner’s, the City’s Building Division will be completing a building inspection of a sampling of units within both villages to assess their existing condition on June 22, 2021. The Chief Building Official will be at the meeting of June 23 to respond to any questions on the condition of the units.
The renovation approach would bring units onto the market faster than the other approaches and some of the units could potentially be made available at below market rates. However, the rehabilitation concept results in significantly fewer units (5.7 dwelling units per acre) units than what the City has conceived of in the past (X dwelling units per acre). This is a concern particularly for development adjacent to the North Concord BART station, which is a prime location for high-density housing. For example, the area surrounding most of the Downtown Concord BART station generally has a density range of 33-100 dwelling units per acre, far denser than the existing development on the Coast Guard property. The overall density is comparable to the City’s Low Density Residential designation, which ranges from 2.5 to 10 dwelling units per net acre.
Staff considers either of the concepts below (redevelopment and phased combination) to be more effective in providing the necessary number of housing units the City needs in order to meet the City’s RHNA numbers for the next housing cycle (2023-2031).
Doing so would help to address lack of housing supply and affordability issues currently being experienced in Concord and throughout the State.
2. Redevelopment - The administrative draft Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Specific Plan had identified 800 new units at the site through a variety of medium and high-density units with a green buffer along the western edge and between the two villages (Attachment 14). The concept was to have a high intensity mixed use area at the northernmost reaches of the Property, nearest to the BART Station. Densities would gradually decrease to the south toward the Victory Village area, taking advantage of proximity to the BART Station by promoting bicycle and pedestrian access via a trail network linked to BART and the Concord Reuse Project open space network, while still maintaining street circulation and connectivity to the CNWS, BART, and to the existing Concord street network. Affordability was planned to be 25%
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
of the units, consistent with the Base. Roadways were planned to connect to the existing neighborhood in addition to the CNWS.
The Property was not included in the adopted 2012 Area Plan for the Concord Reuse Project; however, it was included in the Specific Plan process partially undertaken for the Concord Reuse Project. The land use designations contemplated and discussed publicly on the Property included Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) 24-100 du/net acre, Mixed Use-1 (MU-1) 24-75 du/net acre, Medium Density Residential (R-2) 10-35 du/net acre and Citywide Parks (OS-2) designations. A green space of up to 200 feet on the western edge of the site was to have been analyzed within the Specific Plan process and was intended to provide a buffer to existing neighbors and connectivity to the overall open space network, similar in concept to the Green Frame already established along the CNWS border to the south (Willow Pass Road to Bailey Road).
When the City anticipated purchasing the Property, it was with the expectation that the master developer would undertake a redevelopment approach similar to what was described in the Specific Plan. This would have produced 745 to 800 units with both rental and ownership units and a mix of housing types including multifamily, townhomes, and small lot single family units. Provisions were made for affordability and housing preferences (seniors and veterans), open space, parks, bicycle and pedestrian access, as well as offsite improvements.
While the Specific Plan has not been adopted and the City’s bid was not accepted, it was developed with significant community oversight and input, and included key aspects designed to: 1) assist in alleviating the State’s housing crisis, 2) achieve an adequate number of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA numbers, 3) support a sustainable growth pattern, and 4) provide alternatives to single vehicle car trips by supporting BART ridership numbers within the one-half mile radius of the North Concord BART Station.5
A mid to high-density neighborhood on the northern portion of the site (currently occupied by Quinault Village) would be most consistent with land use best practices given that a large portion of Quinault Village lies within the “one-half mile radius” that is typically associated with transit-oriented development around transit stations. The goal of transit-oriented development is to maximize the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport, which reduces the use of private cars and promotes sustainable urban growth. Adjustments to the redevelopment concepts previously proposed could be considered, given changes in the market, the 5 The Station is referenced as within the “Current Pipeline” for development within BART’s 10-Year Transit Oriented Development Work Plan (2020-2030), Draft August 2020.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
implementation of Assembly Bill 29236 and the evolving plans for redevelopment of the North Concord BART Station
3. Phased Combination - A project approach that could respond to the needs of the City’s Housing Element process and RHNA numbers and also meet the interest of the new Property owners to renovate and lease units, may be possible through the negotiation of a Development Agreement. Such an agreement could allow a phased approach to achieve project goals based on a set of milestones, that could include: 1) the initial renovation and leasing of Victory Village for a set time-period; 2) redevelopment of Quinault Village to a density more commonly associated with Transit Oriented Development; and 3) redevelopment of of the Victory Village upon conclusion of phases 1 and 2 for potential redevelopment. Table 2 provides a conceptual example of such an approach.
Staff believes such a phased combination concept could balance the owner’s desires for tenanting some of the units quickly with the City’s desires for higher density, addressing a portion of the City’s RHNA numbers, while increasing the total units at the site overall in the mid- to long-term in order to achieve the City’s desire to support transit-oriented development. Providing approximately 910-1,180 units in total over time would provide 18-23% of the City’s anticipated 5,073 total RHNA numbers.
The table below provides some initial information as to how the three different concepts compare in terms of densities, units, and timing.
Table 2
Potential Renovation/Redevelopment Concepts
# Concept Net Acres # of units Density
(du/net acre)
Zoning designation/
Density range1
(du/net ac.)
1 Existing/Renovate
2022-2024
32 acres
18 acres
50 acres5
(per Preliminary
Application)
80 units
206 units
286 units
2.5 11.4
5.7 RL (Low Density) /
2.5-10
2 CRP Specific Plan
(Admin. Draft,
pages 62-63)
2022-2026
10 acres
18 acres
26 acres
400 units
400 units
0 units
402
222
MU-2/MU-1 (Mixed Use)
24-100/20-75 du/acre
R-2 (Residential)
10-35 du/acre
Open Space (OS)(buffer/
WP Park/extension)
6 AB2923 refers to state legislation that on September 30, 2018, Governor Brown signed, that affects zoning requirements on existing BART-owned property within ½ mile of BART. AB2923 includes provisions for TOD zoning standards and development streamlining.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
54 acres 3 800 units
3 Phased
Combination
Phase 1 (South)
2021-2031-
Temporary
Phase 2 (North)
2026 and beyond
Phase 3 (South)
2032 and beyond
Development
Agreement
18 acres
10 acres
18 acres
54 acres 3
.
206 units
(demo in Ph.3)
80 units
(demo in Ph. 2)
480 to 600 units
430 to 580 units
910 to 1,180 units
11.4 48-604
24-324
.
Medium Density/
11-32 du/acre
High Density/
33-100 du/acre
Medium Density/
11-32 du/acre
1 Density range is based on net acreage and thus the ranges above are approximations. 2 Totals may not reflect sum of individual regulating zones due to rounding. 3 Net acreage removes land associated with primary roadways. 4 Ranges are conceptual, with low range based on prior administrative draft Specific Plan and mid to high end of ranges, based on proximity to existing neighborhoods and property configurations of northern (more constrained) and southern villages. 5 Net acreage based on removal of roadway areas and oil pipeline easement areas.
Conclusion
Staff requests feedback and direction in order to assist the developer in crafting their formal application for the site. This is the City Council’s opportunity to provide early feedback to the owners for the preparation of their formal application for the Property.
The City has significant discretion in reviewing this project because it requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. However, at the same time feedback provided should be reasonable to ensure a future project is financially viable. At the same time, it is important to reiterate that the City was very upfront in terms of their intentions, desires for redevelopment of the site and the required entitlements necessary for the Coast Guard Property.
A few questions Council may wish to consider and provide feedback on are below.
Council may add to this list or remove items from the list.
1. Considering the City’s most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), what density ranges are appropriate for the northern and southern villages? o Does Council want to weigh in on which, if any, of the three concept approaches presented appear most appropriate for the site?
2. What is the expectation for affordable housing at the site?
3. Is a veteran’s preference desired for occupancy of the units, given the history of the site?
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
4. What is the Council’s expectation in terms of a Project Labor Agreement for the project? Does the expectation change if it is a rehabilitation project vs a new construction project?
5. What is the expectation for connectivity to the CNWS (via connecting road through the Coast Guard site), BART and the existing adjacent neighborhoods?
6. What percentage of open space is appropriate?
7. What is the expectation for park and open space improvements on the site?
8. Are off-site improvements at Willow Pass Park still important?
9. Are there other community benefits desired by Council from this project? Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this study session. Fiscal impacts of any project ultimately proposed will be evaluated as part of the project review.
Environmental Determination
The Special Meeting/Study Session discussion does not commit the City to a definite course of action nor are any decisions being made with respect to the 59-acre Property; therefore, this activity does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code 21065. Even if this activity is a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “Common Sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Appropriate CEQA analysis will occur in connection with formal applications for the Property.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. Notification was mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the Coast Guard property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, and the item has been published in the East Bay Times, as required by the Concord Municipal Code. This item has also been posted at the subject site at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. In addition, the notice was provided to the Holbrook Heights Homeowners Association and the CNWS interested party list via e-mail.
Attachments
1. Preliminary Application of the Coast Guard Owners, submitted May 27, 2021
2. Coast Guard Property aerial map
3. Background summary history of Coast Guard site transition
4. Concord Reuse Project Land Use Diagram, dated August 15, 2018
5. DeNova site plan from September 25, 2018 staff report
6. Coast Guard Summary Sheet, published on City webpage, September 2020.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
June 23, 2021
7. Additional information, published on City webpage, September 2020.
8. ARUP Memo dated November 8, 2017, regarding oil pipeline easements at the Property
9. Property Photos
10. ARUP memo describing utilities, dated May 5, 2020, with Infrastructure Conceptual Map
11. City’s Engineering Memo, dated November 3, 2020
12. CCWD Memo
13. Building Division Memo
14. Administrative Draft Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan, Section 3.3.12 Coast Guard District, pages 62-63.
Attachment 1
Victory Village and Quinault Village Renovation Project Description Victory Village and Quinault Village, the two former Coast Guard housing complexes, total 286 residential units spread across approximately 59 acres. While the two villages are on separate legal parcels, the goal is to bring both villages on‐line into a ready to rent status together in an integrated fashion through a property renovation plan.
The renovation project will consist of two phases:
Phase 1:
The two properties must be secured with on‐site security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will initially require live‐in security team members. This will require a granting of emergency occupancy for one (1) unit in each village to ensure the protection of health and safety. Over the years, three (3) units have suffered fires, resulting in almost complete loss of those units, and the site currently is subject to vandals, copper thieves, and other unauthorized uses. During this phase we would hope to repair all exterior fences, gates and access points as well as make all necessary improvements to ensure the safety of the property and the adjacent neighborhood.
Phase 2
Over the coming weeks, the project contractor will develop a schedule and summary of expected improvements. The initial anticipated improvements are as follows:
‐ Immediately clean and manicure all exterior yards, landscaping, trees, parking lots, anywhere visible from inside or outside the community.
‐ Work with PG&E in upgrading transformers.
‐ Work with CCWD to ensure adequate water service.
‐ Work with National Exemption Services to sub‐meter the living units, https://www.submeter.com/water‐gas‐electric‐ submetering/
‐ deliver already to rent units at a rentable rate of 20 units per month, as per leasing agency. ‐ tenant improvements to include water heaters, appliances, cabinets, flooring, cosmetics. ‐ pull building permits on 3 fire damaged buildings.
It is anticipated that much of the cosmetic, tenant improvement and landscape work will not require building permits, but more will be known when the project contractor completes its detailed property surveillance in the coming weeks.
Entitlements
As no additional density is being sought beyond the existing unit count, we believe the Project requires two limited entitlements. The GSA has agreed that it will consent to initiating the process of obtaining the following entitlements prior to the anticipated closing date in June.
General Plan Amendment
The properties are currently designated “Military” under the General Plan and as they will be sold to private property owners and will no longer be owned or used by the US Government, a General Plan amendment is needed to change the land use designation to one that conforms with a multifamily use consistent with the number of existing units on site.
Zoning Code Amendment
The properties are currently designated “Public Quasi Public” under the City’s Zoning Code and because they will be sold to private property owners and will no longer be owned or used by the US Government or any other public entity, a Zoning Code amendment is needed to change the Zoning designation to one that conforms with a multifamily use that is consistent with the number of existing units on site.
Addendum to Victory Village and Quinault Village Project Description (May 13, 2021)
This additional information supplements the prior project description provided to the City for Victory Village and Quinault Village, the former Coast Guard housing complex totaling 286 residential units on approximately 59 acres off of East Olivera Road (Property). The goal is to bring both villages back into a ready‐to‐rent‐status as quickly as possible once the sale has closed through the integrated renovation of the existing residential units on the Property (Project).
One component of the Project that should be emphasized is that this renovation plan is simply returning existing rental units back to the rental market. For many years these units housed families and residents of Concord until the last Coast Guard residents moved out in 2014. These residents shopped, travelled, attended schools and lived in Concord. While the units have generally slipped into disrepair, subject to vandalism and a lack of maintenance, the units are in generally good condition and the Project sponsor is simply proposing a renovation plan to reoccupy the units.
Below is a response to additional questions posed by the City Attorney seeking additional detail on the Property and Project.
Please specify a proposed General Plan multifamily designation. Would this be a new designation unique to the property or an existing designation? The Property contains 286 residential units on approximately 59 gross acres but 50 “net acres” as the City Code defines that term. The existing density is approximately 5.6 units per net acre. The likely applicable General Plan designation is Low Density (2.5 du to 10 du per net acre). The General Plan designation for Medium Density (11 du to 32 du per net acre) is another alternative that the Project sponsor would like to discuss with the City.
The Project Description mentions rental units. Will all units be rented? Will any of the units be affordable? How many and at what levels of affordability? Please describe their Compliance with other Housing Element provisions.
The Project would renovate and rent 100% of the units. There is no for‐sale component proposed. Based on our interpretation of City Code Section 18.185.040 because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment and is more than five (5) units, the Project must comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements. As a rental development, the Project must either provide 28 units for Low‐Income tenants (10%) or provide 17 units at Very Low‐Income (6%). The sponsor has not formally decided whether the Project will provide the Low Income or Very Low‐Income units at this point. How will the project reflect circulation plans, connectivity, complete streets and TOD policies for vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic and BART ridership. What about other Transportation Element provisions?
As the Project is not new construction and will not be constructing new streets or sidewalks it is unclear what the applicability of those policies are to the Project. Under the proposed Project, the formerly occupied rental units will be re‐occupied. It is anticipated that all streets within the Property would
remain private as they were under Coast Guard ownership. The Project is committed to exploring pedestrian connectivity to the BART station for future residents of the Property. Briefly describe project compliance with other general plan elements besides those mentioned above.
As noted, the Property currently is designated as “Military” under the General Plan. The proposal is to amend that designation to conform with its intended use as a re‐occupied multifamily residential use without any new construction (except for repairs/replacement of several burned units). As the Project is not new construction but instead existing construction, we believe conforming the proposed use to the appropriate General Plan land use category is the key compliance task. How will the project comply with adopted Master Plans, for example the Citywide Parks Master Plan, Trails Master Plan, etc.?
The Property has significant internal open space including for recreation that served prior residents. In addition, the original development of the Property included construction of the Olivera park across the street. As the Project consists of the renovation of existing residential structures it is not clear that the park obligations apply.
What is your approach to schools?
The Project is almost entirely a renovation of existing residential units with new construction limited to the re‐construction of several burned‐out units that were the subject of vandals. We don’t believe that the renovation of structures triggers payment of School Impact Fees, but where Impact fees are required for new construction, the Project sponsor will pay those fees. Please address the utility connections for the project given the above‐linked memos, including the scope of off‐site improvements needed.
The Project sponsor has retained Carlson, Barbee & Gibson to review the existing site infrastructure.
While only preliminary findings have been completed, the Property has a functioning sanitary sewer system with lateral to each building that are collected by gravity mains that convey to the City’s sewer system at East Olivera Road. While maintenance may be needed, the existing system is operable. There are separate storm drain systems for each village with the Quinault storm system collected to the west through existing neighborhood systems. The Victory system primarily coveys storm water to the existing detention basis that ultimately discharges into the City’s system. While maintenance to the two systems may be needed, they are operable.
The existing water system is an in‐tract private system within the property. The private system currently connects to CCWD’s system via a single 6” meter located near the baseball fields on East Olivera Road.
There are two other unrelated services connected as well, that must be disconnected: irrigation for the baseball fields and service to the Naval Weapons Station to the southeast. To complete this, the existing meter will need relocation and reconfiguring.
The electric and gas systems are also in‐tract private systems with the electric and gas connected to PG&E meters near East Olivera Road/Hamilton intersection. The electrical system may need some repairs and maintenance in response to the vandalism that has occurred.
On the topic of the existing three oil/gas pipelines, we continue to investigate to determine whether an easement for at least one of the lines has expired. None of the lines are under or through existing units and none of the lines will be disturbed or require relocation based on the current plan to renovate the existing residential units. The gas lines continue west off of the Property and through the adjacent existing neighborhoods and the lines continue to be operated and maintained by the easement holders. Please specify a proposed zoning multifamily designation.
As noted, the Property contains 286 residential units on approximately 59 gross acres but 50 “net acres” as the City defines that term. With 286 existing units on 50 “net acres” the existing density is approximately 5.6 units per net acre. The likely applicable Zoning designation is Residential Low (RL) (2.5 du to 10 du per net acre). The other alternative designation is Residential Medium (RM) (11 du to 32 du per net acre) which we could discuss with the City.
Please specify zoning permits needed for the project. Specify if any exceptions to zoning provisions would be needed, e.g., variances.
The existing structures on the site will all remain with the only new construction being the replacement of the fire damaged units which will be replaced in‐kind in the identical location. At this time, absent a determination of the future Zoning designation and its accompanying development standards, it is unclear how the existing structures comply with all development standards. We have not completed a preliminary review of the existing structures to determine their consistency with the RL development standards, for example, but we would request in instances where the existing structures deviate from the applicable development standards, that the City declare those deviations as legal non‐conforming subject to the City Code restrictions on enlargement or expansion. As an alternative, a waiver of some of those standards under the State Density Bonus (provided that the requisite affordable housing is provided) would be another method to resolve any existing conditions that deviate from the development standards. Please address CEQA compliance. Describe what your approach was in Alameda and how it would be comparable to the potential site development.
We have not completed an in‐depth analysis of the options under CEQA but upon initial review based on the proposed use, the actions to be analyzed (after the Coast Guard completes the sale) are a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment needed to account for the fact that the Property is now owned by a private party. In addition, the Project is an existing residential facility that will be renovated a brought back into service without an increase in density or size. Based on those assumptions, we believe that several options may exist to streamline CEQA authorization.
Some of the possible streamlining measures include:
a. Guideline 15301, Class 1 Exemption, Existing Facilities. The Project consists of renovations to an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond existing conditions. b. Guideline 15304/5, Class 4 Exemption, Minor Alterations. The Project will not increase density or create new parcels.
c. Guidelines 15183.3 Streamlining for Infill. The Project is located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least 75 percent of the site’s perimeter.
d. Guidelines 15183 Consistent with Community Plan. If the Project has been designated in another planning document it may rely on that document’s CEQA analysis.
In 2017 and 2018 the City of Alameda processed a Zoning Map amendment to remove a “Government Overlay” Zoning Designation on similarly situated Coast Guard Housing upon the sale to a private owner.
In that instance, the City of Alameda Planning Board relied on the Class 4 exemption for the action to amend the Zoning Map and the City Council ultimately relied on Guidelines 15183 for authorization as the site had been designated for housing in the City’s Housing Element EIR.
PROSPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENT
The Property contains 286 residential units on approximately 59 gross acres but 50 “net acres” as the City Code defines that term. The existing density is approximately 5.6 units per net acre.
Existing General Plan Designation: Military
Proposed General Plan Designation: Low Density or Medium Density Existing Zoning Designation: Public Quasi Public
Proposed Zoning Designation: Residential Low or Residential Medium
VILLAGE
QUINALT
VILLAGE
VICTORY
EAST OLIVERA ROAD
ESPERANZA DRIVE
HAMILTON AVEPRESTWICK AVE SARATOGA AVE
MONTGOMERY AVE WEXFORD DRIVE
MONTGOMERY AVE EAST OLIVERA ROAD
MORETTI DRIVE
ESPERANZA DRIVE
G:\2421-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB_NET ACREAGE EXHIBIT.DWG
COAST GUARD HOUSING
NET ACREAGE EXHIBIT
CITY OF CONCORD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: MAY 6, 2021
600 400 200 0 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
SACRAMENTO (916) 375-1877
(925) 866-0322
PROJECT BOUNDARY: 59.4 AC±
ROADWAY AREAS: 7.9 AC±
EASEMENT AREAS: 1.3 AC±
NET ACREAGE: 50.2 AC±
DRAFT
Coast Guard Background Summary (Sept. 25, 2018 staff report) Attachment 3 In 2007, as part of federal to federal agency transfers under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), the U.S. Navy transferred 58 acres (Property) of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The Property is located contiguous to and south of the North Concord/ Martinez BART station and immediately east of Olivera Road (Attachment 1). The USCG used the existing military housing on the site for enlisted personnel who work on Coast Guard Island in Alameda until 2014 when they vacated the buildings. The existing housing had been constructed in two phases; Quinault Village and Victory Village.
Description of the Property
Quinault Village is made up of 41 duplexes, or 82 units, varying in size from 2-3 bedrooms. There is also a community center and tot-lot playground. These units were built in the 1960’s. They are not built to existing code, and were likely not built to the building codes that existed at the time of their construction, as the military does not have to comply with State Building Code requirements. The buildings have asbestos and lead based paint, both of which are hazardous materials, and require remediation prior to demolition.
Victory Village consists of approximately 82 triplexes, or a total of 246 3-4 bedroom units, a small playground, basketball court and a horseshoe pit. Victory Village was built in the 1980’s. There is also an approximate 2 acre site that was used for recreational vehicle (RV) storage. While the triplexes are newer, they were also not built to the State Building Code.
Internal utilities for the entire property are owned and maintained by the USCG. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provide services to the curb line along Olivera Road. The City receives storm water and waste water at the curb for disposal and treatment. The status of the USCG-owned utilities is unknown but can be assumed to be at, or beyond, their design life and most likely not built to current or previous codes. It is believed that the utilities do not follow the streets but in fact run under the housing units, which is not an unusual circumstance on properties developed by the military.
History of City Involvement with the Property
In late 2013, the USCG determined that the Property was too expensive to maintain, and the housing demand within the USCG did not warrant retention of the property. In summer 2014, the USCG contacted City staff to discuss the disposition of the surplus property in an expedited manner.
In response, City staff notified the USCG of its interest to negotiate a sale of the property to the City as opposed to having the property disposed of through a public auction conducted by the General Services Administration (GSA). The USCG, through the GSA, formally notified the City of their willingness to negotiate a sale.
As a result, in late 2014, City staff began conversations with four development teams that were interested in working with the City to complete a negotiated sale and to structure a development plan that would be a mix of market rate and affordable, multifamily housing. The teams consist of Bridge Housing; DeNova Homes/ROEM; Integral Communities/EAH Housing; and USA Properties Fund/Foundation for Affordable Housing/Eden Housing/Taylor Morrison.
However, in September of 2015, the USCG informed staff that it was reconsidering the decision to dispose of the Property, and were discontinuing discussions until the USCG Command made a final determination. In mid-May of 2017, City staff was informed that a final determination had been made to dispose of the Property. In addition, the USCG indicated a willingness to enter into a negotiated sale with the City, so long as there is a clear public benefit outcome and that the City pays the full fair market value of the site.
On May 19, 2017, the City Manager provided a letter to the GSA, as agent for the USCG, stating that the City retains an interest in participating in the negotiated sale process, requesting information related to any environmental studies or other analysis available on the site, and requesting City access to the site in the future, particularly to assist with appraisal efforts.
On October 3, 2017, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the four developer teams that were initially identified when the US Coast Guard developer selection process began in 2015. Council agreed to allow the developer teams to refresh their 2015 submittals and essentially un-pause the developer selection process.
Council set forth a process that the refreshed developer submittals would be heard by the City Council’s Housing and Economic Development Committee (HED) for their review and consideration. The Council also desired to hear the same presentations and information heard by the Housing and Economic Development Committee. At the October meeting, Council also directed staff to move forward with a negotiated sales process with the US Coast Guard to transfer the Property to the City of Concord.
On September 25, 2018, the City Council reviewed four Developer submittals for its consideration as part of the developer selection process for the 58 acre US Coast Guard site (Property). The four submittals reflected the developer respective teams’ qualifications and expertise to undertake a master development of the property. Each submittal also responded to the City’s Selection Criteria which informed the developers on the areas of importance to the City. The Selection Criteria was originally drafted and provided to the developers in 2015 and updated in October of 2017.
On September 25, 2018, as part of the master developer selection process for the Coast Guard Property, the City Council reviewed and considered four proposals from interested developers. DeNova Homes was selected as the master developer and entered into negotiations with the City on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for development of the site in coordination with offering a bid to the GSA to purchase the Property.
City staff has had on-going conversations with the GSA and Coast Guard staff regarding timing and process for transferring the Property to the City. The GSA and Coast Guard anticipate property transfer to the City in October 2019.
On December 18, 2019, the City provided a revised offer of $15 million for the Coast Guard property an increase over their initial offer to the GSA. However, on March 27, 2020, the GSA sent a letter indicating the City’s offer was still below the federal government’s fair market assessment of the value and indicated they would be pursuing a public sale of the property. Subsequently, the GSA initiated a public auction process which began with publication of the Invitation for Bids on September 10, 2020 (Amended on September 21 and November 17, 2020) to facilitate the sale of the property. The public auction began on October 15, 2020, with a minimum starting bid of $15 million. On March 3, 2021, after almost 5 months, a final bidder was successful in outbidding other interested parties for the Property with a final bid of $58.4 million.
Following the conclusion of the auction, the GSA opened escrow and a 90-day closing period was established for the two parties to complete the necessary documents and close the transaction. On June 3, 2021, the transaction closed and the transfer of the property was completed. Since that time, the owners have been focused on securing the site and buildings, along with landscape maintenance.
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
August 15, 2018 © 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton.
BART
Property
D
F
I
J
K
Coast Guard
Property
Tournament
Park
Citywide
Park
Concord Hills
Regional Park
Specific
Plan Area
Boundary
District
Boundary
Land Use Plan
A
B
C E
G
H
T R
A
N
S I T
S
H
E
D
1/2 mile
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
S
H E D
1/2 mile
242
4 Concord
High School
Diablo Creek
Golf Course
First Responder
Training
Facility
John F.
Baldwin
Park
Contra Costa canal
Mt. Diablo
creek
Clayton
ca
n
al
Delta Rd.
Concord
Bart
Downtown
Concord
North Concord/
Martinez Bart
Willow Pass Road
Evora Rd.
Kinne Blvd.
Port Chicago Hwy
Concord Blvd.
West St.
Bailey Rd.
Clayton Way
Landana Dr
E. Olivera Rd.
Farm Bureau Rd.
Salvio St
Avila Rd.
Denkinger Rd.
Clayton St.
5 ac
10 ac
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4800'
1" = 800' at 24" x 36"
5 min. Walk
LAND USE
MU-1: Mixed Use
MU-2: Mixed Use
MU-3: Mixed Use
- Retail
- Office
- Office/Residential over Retail
- Civic/Institutional
- Medium and High Density Residential
C-2: Commercial Flex
- Retail
- Office
- Light Industrial
- Work/Live
R-2: Medium Density Residential
R-1: Low Density Residential
CF-2: Schools
CC: Campus
U-1: PG&E Substation
OS-1: Creek Corridor OS-1
OS-2: District & Citywide Parks
OS-3: Greenway, Canal Park etc.
OS-4: Joint Use School Fields
OS-5: East Bay Regional Park
Note: See Land Use Tables for unit counts,
density and commercial square footage data.
Attachment 4
Revised
8/15/18
200' Buffer at BART/USCG
#REF!
NET AREA NET/NET AREA LAND USE NET/NET DENSITY RANGE AVG DU/AC DU AVG UNIT SIZE TOTAL NET/NET FAR RANGE AVG FAR TOTAL AC AC % AC DU/AC DU/AC # SF SF AC FAR FAR SF
Mixed Use MU
Mixed Use 1 MU‐1 36.0 30.6 10.7 40 ‐ 150 55.0 700 800 560,000 19.9 0.75 ‐ 4.0 1.5 1,275,000 Mixed Use 2 MU‐2 35.7 28.6 18.6 24 ‐ 100 45.0 900 1,600 1,440,000 10.0 0.5 ‐ 3.0 0.9 401,870 Mixed Use 3 MU‐3 56.8 45.4 44.7 20 ‐ 75 21.0 1,000 1,850 1,850,000 0.7 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.5 15,000 Subtotal 128.5 104.6 26% 74.0 35.1 2,600 1,481 3,850,000 30.6 0.9 1,691,870 Residential R
Medium Density R‐2 120.2 90.1 90.1 10 ‐ 35 18.0 1,542 2,000 3,084,000 Low Density R‐1 43.0 32.3 32.3 6 ‐ 15 11.0 250 2,400 600,000 Subtotal 163.2 122.4 33% 122.4 14.6 1,792 2,056 3,684,000 Commercial C
Commercial Flex C‐2 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0% ‐
Campus CC
See Note #8 Campus Commercial w/o ROW CC 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0% ‐
Community Facilities CF
See Note #7 Community Facility/Civic CF‐1
Schools CF‐2 9.6
Subtotal 9.6 2%
Streets/Utilities S
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 115.1
Utilities U‐1 5.7
Subtotal 120.8 24%
Open Space OS
See Note #3 Mt. Diablo Creek Corridor OS‐1 62.8
District and City‐Wide Parks OS‐2 56.0
See Note #4 Greenways, Canal Park, Etc. OS‐3 22.3
See Note #5 Joint‐Use School Playfields OS‐4 0.0
See Note #6 Intract Open Space OS‐5 6.0
Subtotal 78.3 16%
TOTAL CRP Phase I Area 500.4 227.0 100% 196.4 22.4 4,392 1,715 7,534,000 30.6 1.3 1,691,870 Notes: 1. Net Acreage of residential and commercial land uses does not include backbone roads, utilities, open/space parks, or schools. Campus area acreage does not include backbone roads.
2. Net/Net residential and commercial acreages have further take‐out of publically dedicated land for local streets, paseos, and in‐tract open space requirements.
3. Mt. Diablo Creek corridor (149.2 acres) is included in Open Space and Project acreage totals in Table T‐6: Total Project, only. It is not included in the subtotals or totals in Tables T‐1, T‐2 and T‐3 as the Creek Corridor is not a part of individual phases.
4. OS‐3 Open Space includes Greenways, Canal Parks, Creekside Park, Wetlands & Wetland Restoration Areas, & Conservation Lands east of Mt. Diablo Creek.
5. School Joint‐Use Playfields (OS‐4) and In‐tract Open Space (OS‐5) are not included in open space totals. This would require the double‐counting of approximately 40% of the school acreage and portions of net/net residential development area.
6. In‐tract open space, also called small neighborhoood parks, is developer provided local parks and plazas (approximately 1.5% of net residential acreage). It is not shown on Land Use or Open Space and Parks Plans.
7. All community facility and civic sites to be located within mixed use land use areas. Site locations and areas to be determined in Specific Plan.
8. Campus acreage does not include backbone roads (12.3 acres). Gross campus acreage is 123.8 acres.
9. In the Residential Low Density Category a maximum of 40 lots with a density of 0.5 to 6.0 du/ac are allowable in CRP Phase 2 or CRP Phase 3.
10. North Concord BART Plaza (see T‐4), classified as publically accessible private open space (0.74 acres).
11. These notes apply to tables T‐1 through T‐6.
12. Average Unit size and Commercial areas (SF) represent gross conditioned space.
13. All dwelling unit counts within land use categories are approximate.
14. DU ‐ Dwelling Unit; AC ‐ Acre; SF ‐ square feet; DU/AC ‐ Dwelling units per acre; FAR ‐ Floor to area ratio.
LAND USE AREA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM COMMERCIAL
CATEGORY
T‐1: CRP Phase 1
KEY LAND USE
Concord Reuse Project
Land Use and Development Program
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 2 CRP Phase 1 Summary
200' Buffer at BART/USCG
NET AREA NET/NET AREA LAND USE NET/NET DENSITY RANGE AVG DU/AC DU AVG UNIT SIZE TOTAL NET/NET FAR RANGE AVG FAR TOTAL AC AC % AC DU/AC DU/AC # SF SF AC FAR FAR SF
Mixed Use MU
Mixed Use 1 MU‐1 12.3 10.5 0.0 40 ‐ 150 1,200 ‐ 10.5 0.75 ‐ 4.0 1.4 643,130 Mixed Use 2 MU‐2 22.0 17.6 10.6 24 ‐ 100 50.0 675 1,600 1,080,000 7.0 0.5 ‐ 3.0 1.1 350,000 Mixed Use 3 MU‐3 42.6 34.1 33.4 20 ‐ 75 30.0 1,366 1,850 2,527,100 0.7 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.5 15,000 Subtotal 76.9 62.1 7% 43.9 46.4 2,041 1,767 3,607,100 18.2 0.0 1,008,130 Residential R
Medium Density R‐2 106.4 79.8 79.8 10 ‐ 35 19.0 1,250 2,000 2,500,000 Low Density R‐1 115.1 86.3 86.3 6 ‐ 15 10.0 950 2,400 2,280,000 Subtotal 221.4 166.1 22% 166.1 13.2 2,200 2,173 4,780,000 Commercial C
Commercial Flex C‐2 63.5 58.4 20.9 58.4 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.7 1,700,000 Subtotal 63.5 58.4 6% 58.4 0.6 1,700,000
Campus CC
See Note #8 Campus Commercial CC 111.5 89.2 89.2 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.8 3,100,000 Subtotal 111.5 89.2 11% 89.2 0.8 3,100,000
Community Facilities CF
See Note #7 Community Facility/Civic CF‐1
Schools CF‐2 86.8
Subtotal 86.8 8%
Streets/Utilities S
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 106.8
Utilities U‐1 0.0
Subtotal 106.8 10%
Open Space OS
See Note #3 Mt. Diablo Creek Corridor OS‐1 0.0
District and City‐Wide Parks OS‐2 302.1
See Note #4 Greenways, Canal Park, Etc. OS‐3 60.2
See Note #5 Joint‐Use School Playfields OS‐4 44.9
See Note #6 Intract Open Space OS‐5 5.8
Subtotal 362.3 35%
TOTALS CRP PHASE 2 1029.2 375.8 100% 210.0 20.2 4,241 1,978 8,387,100 165.8 0.8 5,808,130 Concord Reuse Project
Land Use and Development Program
T‐2: CRP PHASE 2
LAND USE AREA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM COMMERCIAL
KEY LAND USE CATEGORY
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 3 CRP Phase 2 Summary
200' Buffer at BART/USCG
NET AREA NET/NET AREA LAND USE NET/NET DENSITY RANGE AVG DU/AC DU AVG UNIT SIZE TOTAL NET/NET FAR RANGE AVG FAR TOTAL AC AC % AC DU/AC DU/AC # SF SF AC FAR FAR SF
Mixed Use MU
Mixed Use 1 MU‐1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40 ‐ 150 80.0 ‐ 1,200 ‐ 0.0 0.75 ‐ 4.0 0.0 ‐ Mixed Use 2 MU‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 ‐ 100 55.0 ‐ 1,600 ‐ 0.0 0.5 ‐ 3.0 0.0 ‐ Mixed Use 3 MU‐3 45.7 36.6 30.7 20 ‐ 75 35.0 1,257 1,850 2,325,450 5.9 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.4 100,000 Subtotal 45.7 36.6 9% 30.7 40.9 1,257 1,850 2,325,450 5.9 0.0 100,000 Residential R
Medium Density R‐2 118.0 88.5 88.5 10 ‐ 35 16.0 1,150 2,000 2,300,000 Low Density R‐1 131.3 98.4 98.4 6 ‐ 15 9.0 800 2,400 1,920,000 Subtotal 249.2 186.9 47% 186.9 10.4 1,950 2,164 4,220,000 Commercial C
Commercial Flex C‐2 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.0
Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0%
Campus CC
See Note #8 Campus Commercial CC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.0 Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0%
Community Facilities CF
See Note #7 Community Facility/Civic CF‐1
Schools CF‐2 21.9
Subtotal 21.9 4%
Streets/Utilities S
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 77.9
Utilities U‐1 0.0
Subtotal 77.9 15%
Open Space OS
See Note #3 Mt. Diablo Creek Corridor OS‐1 85.7
District and City‐Wide Parks OS‐2 16.6
See Note #4 Greenways, Canal Park, Etc. OS‐3 113.9
See Note #5 Joint‐Use School Playfields OS‐4 8.8
See Note #6 Intract Open Space OS‐5 4.4
Subtotal 130.5 25%
TOTALS CRP PHASE 3 525.2 223.5 100% 217.6 14.7 3,207 2,041 6,545,450 5.9 0.4 100,000 Concord Reuse Project
Land Use and Development Program
KEY LAND USE CATEGORY
T‐3: CRP PHASE 3
LAND USE AREA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM COMMERCIAL
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 4 CRP Phase 3 Summary
200' Buffer at BART/USCG
2329.7
NET AREA NET/NET AREA LAND USE NET/NET DENSITY RANGE AVG DU/AC DU AVG UNIT SIZE TOTAL NET/NET FAR RANGE AVG FAR TOTAL AC AC % AC DU/AC DU/AC # SF SF AC FAR FAR SF
See Note #10 Mixed Use 1 MU‐1 7.5 7.0 2.5 40 ‐ 150 146.7 360 1,600 576,000 4.6 0.75 ‐ 4.0 4.0 800,000 District Parks and Buffer OS‐2 7.7
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 4.8
TOTAL BART PHASE 20.0 7.0 2.5 146.7 360 1,600 576,000 4.6 4.0 800,000 Mixed Use 2 MU‐2 5.8 4.6 4.6 24 ‐ 100 64.7 300 1,600 480,000 Mixed Use 3 MU‐3 2.8 2.2 2.2 20 ‐ 75 44.6 100 1,600 160,000 Medium Density Residential R‐2 19.5 15.6 15.6 10 ‐ 35 25.6 400 1,800 720,000 District Parks and Buffer OS‐2 23.8
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 7.0
TOTAL USCG PHASE 58.9 22.5 22.5 35.6 800 1,700 1,360,000 LAND USE AREA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM COMMERCIAL
Concord Reuse Project
Land Use and Development Program
T‐5: USCG Phase
T‐4: BART Phase
KEY LAND USE CATEGORY
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 5 BART/USGC Phase Summary
NET AREA NET/NET AREA LAND USE NET/NET DENSITY RANGE AVG DU/AC DU AVG UNIT SIZE TOTAL NET/NET FAR RANGE AVG FAR TOTAL AC AC % AC DU/AC DU/AC # SF SF AC FAR FAR SF
Mixed Use MU
Mixed Use 1 MU‐1 55.8 47.5 14.2 40 ‐ 150 80.0 1,200 1,200 1,440,000 33.2 0.75 ‐ 4.0 1.6 2,300,000 Mixed Use 2 MU‐2 63.5 50.8 27.9 24 ‐ 100 45.0 1,350 1,600 2,160,000 22.9 0.5 ‐ 3.0 1.2 1,150,000 Mixed Use 3 MU‐3 147.9 118.3 111.2 20 ‐ 75 22.0 2,990 1,850 5,531,500 7.1 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.5 150,000 Subtotal 267.2 216.6 11% 153.4 36.1 5,540 1,648 9,131,500 63.2 1.3 3,600,000 Residential R
Medium Density R‐2 364.0 273.0 273.0 10 ‐ 35 21.0 5,460 2,000 10,920,000 Low Density R‐1 289.3 217.0 217.0 6 ‐ 15 10.0 2,000 2,400 4,800,000 Subtotal 653.4 490.0 28% 490.0 15.2 7,460 2,107 15,720,000 Commercial C
Commercial Flex C‐2 63.5 58.4 20.9 58.4 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.7 1,700,000 Subtotal 63.5 58.4 3% 58.4 0.7 1,700,000
Campus CC
See Note #8 Campus Commercial CC 111.5 89.2 89.2 0.3 ‐ 2.0 0.8 3,100,000 Subtotal 111.5 89.2 5% 89.2 0.8 3,100,000
Community Facilities CF
See Note #7 Community Facility/Civic CF‐1
Schools CF‐2 118.3
Subtotal 118.3 5%
Streets/Utilities S
Backbone Roads ROW S‐1 307.6
Utilities U‐1 5.7
Subtotal 313.3 13% 10.3
Open Space OS
See Note #3 Mt. Diablo Creek Corridor OS‐1 149.2
District and City‐Wide Parks OS‐2 406.1
See Note #4 Greenways, Canal Park, Etc. OS‐3 247.2
See Note #5 Joint‐Use School Playfields OS‐4 53.7
See Note #6 In‐tract Open Space OS‐5 16.3
Subtotal 802.5 34%
TOTAL PROJECT SITE 2326.7 854.2 100% 643.4 20.2 13,000 1,912 24,851,500 210.8 0.9 8,400,000 LAND USE CATEGORY
LAND USE AREA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM
T‐6: CRP ‐ Total Project (All Phases)
COMMERCIAL
KEY
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 6 Total Project Summary
Estimate of Development Program Allocated by Phase and District 31‐Jul‐18
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD Subtotal Office Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtoal A North Concord TOD 852 262 333 20 1,467 1,000,000 190,000 130,680 1,320,680 B Campus ‐
C Transit Adjacent South ‐ D Olivera ‐
E Willow Pass North 50 66 118 234 F Willow Pass South 40 220 415 675 G Town Center 398 394 679 545 2,016 53,976 180,000 137,214 371,190 H Gateway ‐
I Brubeck ‐
J Bailey ‐
K City‐Wide Open Space ‐
1,250 746 1,298 1,098 4,392 1,053,976 370,000 267,894 1,691,870 28% 17% 30% 25% 100% 62% 22% 16% 100%
Current Phase II/III Program
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD Subtotal Office Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtotal A North Concord TOD ‐ 783,130 783,130 B Campus ‐ 800,000 2,300,000 3,100,000 C Transit Adjacent South 893 365 325 75 1,658 200,000 10,000 210,000 D Olivera 275 312 175 762 5,000 5,000 E Willow Pass North 275 263 494 1,032 5,000 5,000 F Willow Pass South 149 640 789 5,000 5,000 G Town Center ‐
H Gateway ‐ 1,700,000 1,700,000 I Brubeck ‐
J Bailey ‐
K City‐Wide Open Space ‐
893 915 1,049 1,384 4,241 1,783,130 2,300,000 25,000 1,700,000 5,808,130 21% 22% 25% 33% 100% 31% 40% 0.4% 29% 100%
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD SFD Large Subtotal Office Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtotal A North Concord TOD ‐
B Campus ‐
C Transit Adjacent South ‐ D Olivera ‐
E Willow Pass North ‐
F Willow Pass South
G Town Center ‐
H Gateway ‐
I Brubeck 500 450 710 1,660 20,000 20,000 J Bailey 757 457 293 40 1,547 80,000 80,000 K City‐Wide Open Space ‐
1,257 907 1,003 40 3,207 100,000 100,000 0% 39% 28% 31% 1.2% 100% 100% 100%
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD SFD Large Subtotal Office Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtotal A North Concord TOD 852 262 333 20 ‐ 1,467 1,783,130 ‐ 190,000 ‐ 130,680 2,103,810 B Campus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 800,000 2,300,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,100,000 C Transit Adjacent South 893 365 325 75 ‐ 1,658 200,000 ‐ 10,000 ‐ ‐ 210,000 D Olivera ‐ 275 312 175 ‐ 762 ‐ ‐ 5,000 ‐ ‐ 5,000 E Willow Pass North ‐ 325 329 612 ‐ 1,266 ‐ ‐ 5,000 ‐ ‐ 5,000 F Willow Pass South ‐ 40 369 1,055 ‐ 1,464 ‐ ‐ 5,000 ‐ ‐ 5,000 G Town Center 398 394 679 545 ‐ 2,016 53,976 ‐ 180,000 ‐ 137,214 371,190 H Gateway ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,700,000 ‐ 1,700,000 I Brubeck ‐ 500 450 710 ‐ 1,660 ‐ ‐ 20,000 ‐ ‐ 20,000 J Bailey ‐ 757 457 293 40 1,547 ‐ ‐ 80,000 ‐ ‐ 80,000 K City‐Wide Open Space ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,143 2,918 3,254 3,485 40 11,840 2,837,106 2,300,000 495,000 1,700,000 267,894 7,600,000 18% 25% 27% 29% 0.3% 100% 37% 30% 7% 22% 3.5% 100%
5,061
Notes: 1. Program sources: Area Plan: Volume One Residential Program (page 40); FivePoint 9/6/2017 Comm. Program + 2.3m Campus site, 2/27/18 comm. program update, 4/18/18 FP residential program update, November 2017 BART confirmation of program. Also minor adjustment of Phase I program 05/2018.
2. MF Multi‐family, SFA ‐ Single Family Attached, SFD ‐ Single Family Detached, SFD Large ‐ Single Family Atached Large Lot (See note 8 Sheet 7).
Phase Total
Unit Type %
District
CRP PHASES 1, 2, and 3
Residential Commercial / Campus
Unit Type %
Phase Total
District
CRP PHASE 3
Residential Commercial / Campus
Phase Total
Unit Type %
Phase Total
Unit Type %
CRP PHASE 2
Residential Commercial / Campus
District Residential Commercial / Campus
CRP PHASE I
Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan
CRP Phases Only
District
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 7 Development Program Allocated by Phase/District
Estimate of Development Program Allocated by Phase and District 31‐Jul‐18
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD Subtotal Office Office BART Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtoal A North Concord TOD 360 360 800,000 800,000 B Campus ‐
C Transit Adjacent South ‐ D Olivera ‐
E Willow Pass North ‐
F Willow Pass South ‐
G Town Center ‐ ‐ H Gateway ‐
I Brubeck ‐
J Bailey ‐
K City‐Wide Open Space ‐ 360 360 800,000 800,000 100% 100% 100% 100%
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD Subtotal Office Office BART Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtoal A North Concord TOD 90 90 ‐ B Campus ‐
C Transit Adjacent South 310 310 D Olivera 400 400 E Willow Pass North ‐
F Willow Pass South ‐
G Town Center ‐ ‐ H Gateway ‐
I Brubeck ‐
J Bailey ‐
K City‐Wide Open Space ‐ 400 400 ‐ 800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50% 50% 100% 0%
MF ‐ Podium MF ‐ Walk Up SFA SFD SFD Large Subtotal Office Office BART Campus Retail Flex Hotel Subtotal A North Concord TOD 1,212 352 333 20 ‐ 1,917 1,783,130 800,000 190,000 130,680 2,903,810 B Campus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 800,000 2,300,000 3,100,000 C Transit Adjacent South 893 675 325 75 ‐ 1,968 200,000 10,000 210,000 D Olivera ‐ 275 712 175 ‐ 1,162 5,000 5,000 E Willow Pass North ‐ 325 329 612 ‐ 1,266 5,000 5,000 F Willow Pass South ‐ 40 369 1,055 ‐ 1,464 5,000 5,000 G Town Center 398 394 679 545 ‐ 2,016 53,976 180,000 137,214 371,190 H Gateway Neighborhood ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,700,000 1,700,000 I Brubeck ‐ 500 450 710 ‐ 1,660 20,000 20,000 J Bailey ‐ 757 457 293 40 1,547 80,000 80,000 K City‐Wide Open Space ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,503 3,318 3,654 3,485 40 13,000 2,837,106 800,000 2,300,000 495,000 1,700,000 267,894 8,400,000 19% 26% 28% 27% 0.3% 100% 34% 10% 27% 6% 20% 3% 100%
5,821
Notes:
Unit Type %
2. MF Multi‐family, SFA ‐ Single Family Attached, SFD ‐ Single Family Detached, SFD Large ‐ Single Family Atached Large Lot (See note 8 Sheet 7).
1. Program sources: Area Plan: Volume One Residential Program (page 40); FivePoint 9/6/2017 Comm. Program + 2.3m Campus site, 2/27/18 comm. program update, 4/18/18 FP residential program update, November 2017 BART confirmation of program.
District
TOTALS ALL PHASES
Residential Commercial / Campus
Project Totals
Unit Type %
Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan
BART, Coast Guard Phases, and Total Project Phases
Unit Type %
District UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) PHASE
Residential Commercial / Campus
District
BART PHASE
Residential Commercial / Campus
Phase Total
Phase Total
Concord, California
CONCORD REUSE PROJECT
© 2018 HART HOWERTON. The designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. The drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton. August 8, 2018 8 Development Program Allocated by Phase/District
Attachment 5
Public Benefits
• 60% AMI or Less for Affordable Housing Units Created
• 25% of which will be preferred for veterans
• 15 Acres of Park/Open Space Improvements
• 50’ pedestrian & bicycle trail-buffer between existing homes • Improvements to Willow Pass Community Park
• Based upon community/City feedback & input for plans
• Reducing Traffic Impacts
• Extending Panoramic Drive to keep traffic off Olivera Road • Improving Pedestrian Connectivity
• Extension of sidewalk down Olivera Road towards Willow Pass • Utilizing Green Building Methods
• Exploring “Smart City” Practices and Building Strategies
1 CITY OF CONCORD
PLANNING DIVISION
PHONE: (925) 671-3152
FAX: (925) 671-3381
Planning & Economic
Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578
www.cityofconcord.org
Coast Guard Summary Information and Background
October 20, 2020
Steps Necessary toward Development
1. General Plan Amendment – the site is currently designated “Military” in the City’s General Plan. A General Plan Amendment would be required for any new development at the site to an appropriate land use designation based on the development proposed.
2. Rezoning – the site currently is zoned PQP (Public Quasi Public) and has no entitlements.
The administrative draft Specific Plan for the Reuse Project placed up to 800 units on the property, reflecting a range of densities. The administrative draft Specific Plan also showed a 200-foot buffer from the existing neighborhood, and greenways over the petroleum pipelines. A detention basin, roads and infrastructure connections to the Reuse Project were also shown.
3. Specific Plan Participation - The Coast Guard site was previously included within the Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan effort. The City strongly encourages the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Coast Guard site. The City sees value in such a document that would provide clear guidance for future development in terms of infrastructure, community benefits, development standards and design guidelines to reinforce a high quality design. The City may re-engage on an RFP process for a new developer for the Concord Reuse Project (CRP), during the planning of the Coast Guard site, in which case coordination between the two projects would be necessary. The City expects a comprehensive outreach process, with the adjacent North Concord neighborhoods, prior to City submittal.
4. Subdivision and/or Design and Site Review - Applications for the project would be required for any proposed development in concert with the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications, which we anticipate would take 18-24 months. These may include a combination of Subdivision, Use Permit, and Design and Site Review applications, depending upon the proposal.
5. CEQA review – Review of both the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and project proposals will be necessary. Staff anticipated the CEQA review will take at least 9-12 months, and run parallel with the overall project applications.
6. Remediation – Identification and clean up of outstanding remediation issues may be necessary. This should be determined in coordination with the Coast Guard and Navy, and early to avoid delays with environmental review.
7. Development Agreement – Any development agreement should assume a project labor agreement, affordable housing and negotiated community benefits.
8. Application Fees - The developer will have to pay City application fees for the General Plan Amendment, Zoning, Subdivision, Use Permit and/or Design and Site Review applications. These are based on a deposit based system and will depend on the number of lots and combination of application types. CEQA processes and DDA processes will be addressed through reimbursement agreement or fees, as appropriate.
See item 5 above.
Attachment 6
2 CITY OF CONCORD
PLANNING DIVISION
PHONE: (925) 671-3152
FAX: (925) 671-3381
Planning & Economic
Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578
www.cityofconcord.org
9. Coordination with Local and Regional Agencies - BART owns the site to the north of the Coast Guard site. It will be necessary for the developer to coordinate with BART in terms of planned access points and connectivity between the two sites for roadways as well as trails/bike paths. Depending on timing, coordination with a newly selected Concord Reuse Project developer could also be necessary.
Additional information:
1. Will the City support the Coast Guard 58 acres to be considered separately from the overall Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan? The City has determined that the Coast Guard site could be separated out and developed in advance of the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Specific Plan process. To a degree, this depends on the timing of both projects. However, the City is interested in seeing the following components incorporated into the Coast Guard project planning:
Infrastructure connections consistent with the CRP.
Open space and trail connections consistent with the CRP to protect the existing high-pressure oil pipelines that travel through the site. Connectivity to the North Concord BART Station site.
Open space buffer, adjacent to existing neighbors, providing trail access through the CG site and some privacy for the existing neighborhood. Width of this green space will depend to an extent upon the design of the project, but the City Council has indicated a desire for a green space of up to 200 feet in width on the adjacent BART site. Some discussion of transitional heights has been discussed as one potential solution to achieving a narrower buffer.
2. What was the prior plan for the site?
The Administrative Draft CRP Specific Plan had anticipated 800 multi-family units on the property in land use designations with a range of densities (approximately 20-100 du/acre).
The proposed units on the Coast Guard site were at a lower density than those proposed units immediately surrounding the North Concord BART Station. Density will be related to the overall buffer and a successful transitional design from the existing neighborhood.
3. Does City support renovation/rehabilitation of units within either of the villages? The City believes it would be most efficient to demolish the units on the site. Although the code allows for structures built to federal standards to be considered existing legal structures, the lack of maintenance over the years and length of vacancy, has resulted in units in disrepair and sporadic occurrences of squatting within the units and fire damage to some of the structures. The potential for the occurrence of lead paint and asbestos due to the age of the dwellings, may bring additional liability. Necessary repairs to any of the units would be required to be brought up to current building code potentially requiring complete replacement of electrical services and wiring, plumbing and sewer systems, insulation and lighting, and thus financially it may not prove prudent or cost effective to rehabilitate the units.
3 CITY OF CONCORD
PLANNING DIVISION
PHONE: (925) 671-3152
FAX: (925) 671-3381
Planning & Economic
Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578
www.cityofconcord.org
In addition, it is the City’s understanding that a couple of the units may currently rest within the pipeline buffer area. It is the City’s understanding according to the appraisal that the utilities would need to be removed and/or reconfigured to develop the property to its highest and best use. See City Resources, page 4.
4. Affordable housing. How much will be necessary on the site? Past City Council HED Committee has directed staff to seek an increase from the City’s inclusionary housing requirements (10%) if and when changing the General Plan designation. The City is interested in achieving 25 percent of total units at the site as affordable housing, consistent with the CRP Draft Specific Plan.
5. Who owns the pipelines travelling through the site?
Three high-pressure oil pipelines are operated by Phillips 66 Pipeline, Kinder Morgan/SFPP, and Shell Pipeline. Each of the easements for these pipelines have a width of 16.5’ and each runs in a largely parallel alignment from the southeastern end of the former CNWS (near Bailey Road), northwest in the Green Frame Linear Park along the western border, until reaching Willow Pass Road, at which point the pipelines head west across the Village Neighborhood in the airfield area and intersect the Coast Guard property between Victory Village and Quinault Village, continuing to Olivera Road, then heading northwest. A Memo has been prepared by ARUP, dated November 8, 2017, with additional details.
6. Is there any special off site work needed such as connection to BART or ballfield improvements tied to this development?
Yes, see above and the utility memo, prepared by ARUP, an 8-inch meter for domestic and fire water for the Coast Guard site is located across East Olivera Road on the Little League parking lot and will likely need to be relocated. In addition, the villages have limited storm drainage capacity, which will need to be improved.
7. What is amount of City fees for application?
General Plan Amendment, Zoning, Subdivision and Design and Site review applications, total approximately will range depending on project design and application types. These do not include environmental fees for a consultant to prepare an EIR for which the City would retain a consultant, funded by the developer, selected and managed by the City based on an additional 20% administrative fee. See lines 10.1.4, 11, 17, 19, 25.1.5, 25.1.6, 33.2, 41, 42,
43. https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/85/City-of-Concord-MasterFees-and-Charges-PDF
4 CITY OF CONCORD
PLANNING DIVISION
PHONE: (925) 671-3152
FAX: (925) 671-3381
Planning & Economic
Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578
www.cityofconcord.org
City Resources:
Attachment A: Coast Guard Housing Utilities - ARUP Memo, dated May 5, 2020.
Attachment B: Location Map
Attachment C: CNWS Oil Pipeline Easement Status and Development Constraints – ARUP Memo, dated November 8, 2017.
Attachment D: Area Plan Diagram (2012).
Attachment E: Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Book One (2012) Link: http://www.concordreuseproject.org/170/Key-Documents Attachment F: CRP Specific Plan – Admin. Draft Specific Plan Coast Guard excerpt, pgs. 62-63.
Attachment G: CRP Specific Plan diagrams: Circulation and Mobility Attachment H: City’s Offer Letter to GSA, dated December 18, 2019 Attachment I: GSA’s rejection letter to City, dated March 27, 2020.
Attachment K: City’s Development Code (Title 18)
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Concord/#!/Concord18/Concord1825.html#18.25.010 Other Resources Available:
1. As-built information is available for Victory Village, on request.
2. Infrastructure plans for portions of the site, on request.
5 CITY OF CONCORD
PLANNING DIVISION
PHONE: (925) 671-3152
FAX: (925) 671-3381
Planning & Economic
Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578
www.cityofconcord.org
USCG Site Fact Sheet
APNs: 111-010-006 and a portion of 111-010-014
Property Location: East side of East Olivera Road, East of Port Chicago Highway Proximity to BART: Approximately 1,500 feet south of the North Concord BART Station entry Owner: United States Coast Guard; over 7 years; prior owner Navy Quinault Village (northern): approximate year built in 1965, 82 duplex units (41 duplexes) on Clymer Court, Enterprise Court, Hamilton Avenue, and Hancock Court. Includes a community center and tot-lot playground.
Victory Village (southern): approximate year built in 1989, 246 units (triplexes) in a variety of building types on Kiska Court, Mauna Kea Court and Mount Hood Circle. Includes a small playground, basketball court and horseshoe pit. While newer, they evidently were not built to State Building Code requirements.
Current use: Vacant
Improvements: Former military housing barracks, approximately 328 units, 31-55 years old Total Site Area: 59.41 acres
General Plan designation: Military (M)
Zoning designation: Public Quasi Public (PQP)
Neighboring zoning: RS-6 (Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and PR (Parks and Rec) Earthquake zone: Not in Alquist Priolo Study Zone
Utilities: Water, Contra Costa Water District, contact 688-8100.
Sewer, City, contact Bruce Davis at 671-3470
Storm water, City, contact Bruce Davis at 671-3470
Agency Resources:
http://www.cityofconcord.org/BusinessDirectoryII.aspx?lngBusinessCategoryID=22 Flood zone:
Area not studied, previously part of CNWS (adjacent areas are Flood Zone X.
Public Benefits:
A few of the public benefits the City anticipates coming from the development of the Coast Guard site includes:
Connection(s) to BART site
Bike path connecting to adjacent areas (BART, CRP and existing neighborhood) Detention basins to accommodate storm flows
Affordable Housing
Attachment
7
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 7
To Guy Bjerke, City of Concord Date
November 8, 2017
Copies Joan Ryan, City of Concord Reference number
251780
From Dahlia Chazan, Tim Bates, Arup; Mike Biddle, Burke Williams & Sorenson
File reference
4-05
Subject CNWS Oil Pipeline Easement Status and Development Constraints 1 Introduction
This memo summarizes Arup’s findings regarding three oil pipelines crossing the CNWS property. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the pipelines is enclosed as Attachment 1. The goals of this research were to: 1) identify the planning considerations presented by these pipelines, and 2) investigate the status of the 1966 easement(s).
As identified by Lennar | FivePoint’s engineers, CBG, easements for the three oil pipelines (“hazardous liquid pipelines”) were granted in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, three high-pressure pipelines on these easements are operated by Phillips 66 Pipeline, Kinder Morgan/SFPP, and Shell Pipeline. Each of the easements have a width of 16.5’ and each runs in a largely parallel alignment from the southwestern end of the former CNWS north in the Green Frame along the western border, until reaching Willow Pass Road, at which point the pipelines head west across the Village Neighborhood in the airfield area and intersect the Coast Guard property between Victory Village and Quinault Village.
The City and master developer will have to work with the easement holders to ensure that the planning, design, and construction of new development in proximity to the pipelines is consistent with guidance and requirements for development near pipelines.
2 Planning Considerations
Activities around pipelines are subject to regulation at the local, state, and federal levels. In 1979, Congress enacted comprehensive safety legislation governing the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline, the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, 49 U.S.C. 2001 et seq. (HLPSA). The HLPSA expanded the existing statutory authority for safety regulation, which was limited to transportation by common carriers in interstate and foreign commerce, to transportation in facilities used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Modeled largely on the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, 49 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. (NGPSA), the HLPSA provides for a national hazardous liquid Attachment 8
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 7
pipeline safety program with nationally uniform minimal standards and with enforcement administered through a Federal-State partnership. The HLPSA leaves to exclusive Federal regulation and enforcement the “interstate pipeline facilities,” those used for pipeline transportation of hazardous liquids in interstate or foreign commerce. For the remainder of pipeline facilities, denominated “intrastate pipeline facilities,” the HLPSA provides that the same Federal regulation and enforcement will apply unless a State certifies that it will assume those responsibilities. A certified State must adopt the same minimal standards but may adopt additional more stringent standards so long as they are compatible.
Based on a review of the National Pipeline Mapping System, the pipeline facilities in question are “intrastate pipeline facilities”. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51010, the State Fire Marshall exercises exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority over intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines and is authorized to implement the HLPSA as necessary to obtain annual federal certification.
Accordingly, the three pipelines in question appear to be subject to the exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority of the State Fire Marshall.
The State Fire Marshall has adopted regulations as it relates to hazardous liquid pipelines at Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 14, California Code of Regulations; Section 2000 thereof adopts by reference the provisions of the HLPSA (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195). It does not appear that the State Fire Marshall has adopted more stringent development constraints than those contained in the HLPSA. Finally, at a local level, jurisdictions can apply their own, more stringent land use and development controls surrounding pipelines. The City of Concord does not appear to have adopted any such controls.
Pursuant to applicable federal law, Section 195.210 (b) of the HLPSA provides that no pipeline may be located within 50 feet of any private dwelling, any industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or assemble, unless it is provided with at least 4 feet of cover. Thus, absent the adoption of more stringent set back requirements, it will be important to understand the depth at which these pipelines are situated. We do not currently have information on the depth of cover.
Pursuant to applicable state law, Section 14010, Article 2, Subchapter 1, Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 5, California Code of Regulations, provides that a school site shall not be located within 1500 feet of a pipeline that “can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study.” Other than these 2 provisions, state and federal laws and regulations do not provide detailed guidance on setbacks for different types of land uses.
Further, independent of land use, California Government Code Section 51014.6 provides that the primary requirement is that pipeline operators have unimpeded access to the entire pipeline easement for operations, maintenance, and emergencies, which has implications for development adjacent to the easement that might otherwise “prevent complete and unimpaired access to the easement”; further, the easement should not be planted with trees and shrubs that would inhibit aerial observation of the pipeline, though this does not prohibit revegetation of landscape material that was disturbed by construction of the pipeline or planting and harvesting seasonal agricultural crops.
Finally, although not regulatory in nature, the pipeline operators have prepared more detailed guidelines (explained in Section 2.5) for construction and development in close proximity to pipelines.
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 7
While these setbacks and specifications are not enshrined in state and federal regulation, they represent the industry’s attempt to provide a set of standard practices.
2.1 Federal regulation
At the federal level, the Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Part 195, regulates hazardous liquid pipelines and establishes standards for their design and operation.1It makes provisions for the siting of pipelines, and provides the following guidance on setbacks and restrictions on land uses in close proximity to a pipeline easement.
Part 195 establishes:
- 195.210 Pipeline location.
(a) Pipeline right-of-way must be selected to avoid, as far as practicable, areas containing private dwellings, industrial buildings, and places of public assembly. (b) No pipeline may be located within 50 feet (15 meters) of any private dwelling, or any industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or assemble, unless it is provided with at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of cover in addition to that prescribed in §195.248.
- 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.
In industrial, commercial, and residential areas, pipelines should be at least 36 inches below the surface (and below the level of cultivation).
Part 195 also requires operators to regularly inspect pipelines by walking, driving, flying or other means.
2.2 State regulation
At the state level, the State Fire Marshal serves as the regulatory and enforcement authority over intrastate pipelines. Recall that the State Fire Marshall has adopted by reference the aforementioned federal regulations set forth in Part 195. In addition, California Government Code Title 5 (Local Agencies), Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 5.5 establishes the following guidelines for intrastate pipelines:2 - No structures or improvements may be constructed within a pipeline easement. - No structure, wall, or fence adjacent to the easement may be built that would prevent complete and unimpaired surface access to the easement.
1 Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Part 195 is available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=ae6ec6ffd005de5d8d9b4f1ad6654645&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr195_main_02.tpl 2 The full text of the Chapter 5.5 can be found on the California Legislative Information website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=5.
5.
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 7
- No shrubbery or shielding in or along the easement may be built that will impair aerial observation.
- The easement may be revegetated following pipeline construction and the operator may permit seasonal agriculture, if desired.
- Operators are permitted to conduct any necessary activities within their easement, including construct, replace, relocate, repair, or operate the pipeline.
Beyond these regulations, California has also established regulations setting the minimum distance between sites for school facilities and pipelines. Section 14010 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards for construction of school facilities which prevent a school site from being located within 1,500 feet of a pipeline easement that poses a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study.3Thus, any required school properties must be sited to maintain this minimum setback distance.
Additionally, the California Department of Education has published a School Site Selection and Approval Guide, which offers further guidance related to pipelines:4 - School site cannot contain hazardous substance pipelines (including crude oil and refined liquid products) “unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood.”
- A geological and environmental hazards report for a proposed school site would document all high-pressure pipelines and fuel transmission lines within 1,500 feet of a proposed site.
Section 14010 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth numerous additional criteria unrelated to oil pipelines that will need to be factored in relative to the siting of a school site.
Finally, if there are public drinking water wells within 1,000 feet of a pipeline, each pipeline operator must prepare a pipeline wellhead protection plan pursuant to Government Code Section 51017.2 in order to address potential contamination to the public water well from a pipeline rupture or leak.
2.3 Local regulations
The City of Concord Municipal Code does not provide any guidance on setbacks from, or development standards related to, hazardous materials pipelines. The U.S. DOT Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) provides guidance to local communities on development near pipelines.5 It offers general recommendations and offers examples how communities have implemented
3 California Code of Regulations Title 5 School Facilities Construction standards is available on the Department of Education website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/title5regs.asp. The Department of Education also provides a guidance protocol on assessing school site pipeline risk: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/pipeline.asp. 4 The entire school siting guide is available on the Department of Education website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp
5 The PHMSA provides a wide variety of resources for communities to establish guidelines further restricting uses near pipelines. https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/LandUsePlanning.htm?nocache=4645
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 7
“planning areas” and “consultation zones” to facilitate planning for safe development near pipelines— beyond simply establishing a setback.
2.4 Easement language
The language of the three pipeline easements in the CNWS provides for the pipeline operators to safely operate, maintain, repair, and replace the pipeline. They do not specify any further use constraints or setbacks in relation to the 16.5 foot width of the easement itself. The easement language allows for the U.S. Government (grantor of the easement) to terminate the easements in whole or in part if the government determines that the pipeline constitutes an undue interference with any of its activities. If terminated, the cost of pipeline removal would fall to the operator.
2.5 Oil industry guidelines
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has prepared guidelines6that establish recommended setbacks, distances, and other specifications for how various construction, utility, and development activities interact with pipelines. In general, these guidelines call for uninhabited structures and development to be set back at least 25 feet from the pipeline, and inhabited buildings or places of public assembly to be set back 50 feet. The guidelines also explain that the pipeline easement should be kept clear in order to enable aerial surveillance, routine maintenance, and emergency response access. In some cases, ornamental trees and landscaping in the easement may be permitted. Guidance for access and maintenance of the easement right-of-way essentially replicate California regulations, as noted in section 2.2.
Additionally, Phillips 66 Pipeline provided Arup their generic guidelines for development activities in close proximity to their pipelines.7Like the API guidelines, these include numerous criteria for setbacks, permitted and restricted uses near pipelines, including the following:
- Uninhabited buildings, engineering works, patios, or other temporary or permanent structures:
25 foot setback from the pipeline. Some temporary uses, such as parking construction equipment, may be permitted in the easement right-of-way with prior written approval from the permittor (Phillips).
- Inhabited structures, including private dwellings, industrial buildings, or places of public assembly: 50 foot setback from the pipeline (to be included as a deed or plat restriction on any parcel carved out of the lands that abut the right-of-way). - Parallel utilities: 25 feet (with minimum height of 20 feet for overhead cables) from pipeline. - Non-parallel utility poles, guy wires, and anchors: 8 feet from pipeline. - Parallel roads: 25 feet from road edge to pipeline.
6 The API guidelines are available online from Phillips 66 Pipeline: http://www.phillips66pipeline.com/am-site/media/apiguidelines-for-property-development.pdf 7 The Phillips 66 Pipeline Encroachment Guidelines are attached.
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 7
- Roads passing over the pipeline should cross at an angle as close to 90 degrees as possible, and depth of cover shall be at least 48 inches under road surfaces from top of pipe to top of surface. - Fences will not be allowed on the easement right-of-way without prior approval of the permittor and must be easily removable.
- Trees or deep-rooted plants are not permitted in the right-of-way. - Pipeline greenbelt: 25 feet on either side of pipeline, or width of the easement, to be established when platting any new residential or commercial subdivision subject to the permittor’s easement in order to provide that no lot lines or fences cross into the right-of-way.
The guidelines include other conditions and notes, including for utilities and the construction phase of nearby projects.
3 1966 easement status
CBG identified the 1966 easement as having a 50 year term, which expired in 2016. This easement contains a pipeline operated by Shell Pipeline. We were unable to find someone at Shell to confirm this statement and explain the current status, but understand generally that easements are often renewed without being formally recorded.
Memorandum
C:\USERS\JRYAN\DESKTOP\CNWS\RESOURCES\PIPELINES\2017 11 8 CRP PIPELINE DEV CONSTRAINTS MEMO.DOCX OAK #4815-7663-1885 v2
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
DEPICTION OF PIPELINE LOCATIONS
Attachment 9
Coast Guard Site- Photos
Victory Village
Attachment 9
Quinault Village
Memorandum
J:\S-F\210000\216464-01\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\COAST GUARD PROPERTY\2020 04 22 UPDATED UTILITIES MEMO\COAST GAURD UTILITES MEMO 2020 05 05.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 5
To Guy Bjerke, City of Concord Date
May 5, 2020
Copies Dahlia Chazan, Arup Reference number
216464
From Jacob Wood, PE, Arup File reference
Subject Coast Guard Housing Utilities
1 Introduction
This memo presents our understanding of the existing utility infrastructure serving the Coast Guard (CG) Housing on E Olivera Rd – Quinault and Victory Villages, along with summarizing our findings regarding three oil pipelines that bisect the CG property between villages and provides a high-level discussion of the constraints and opportunities for the reuse of existing infrastructure to support the redevelopment of the villages.
Quinault Village was constructed in 1965. It consists of duplexes, approximately 80 housing units, arranged linearly along Hamilton Avenue. Victory Village is newer, constructed in 1989. It consists of triplexes, approximately 200 housing units. All roadways and infrastructure within the villages are owned by the CG.
2 Existing Utilities at Quinault and Victory Villages
Existing utility information presented below is solely based on a phone conversation with Kevin McDonald of CG Housing on 4/8/14 and anecdotal evidence gathered using aerial images and a site walk. A diagrammatic exhibit of the existing utilities is included as Attachment A.
Existing Utilities
Quinault and Victory Village utilities are served from public facilities on or adjacent to E Olivera Rd.
In general, Victory utilities are served from the older Quinault services. Thus, the villages have single points of service and single meters for water, electric, and gas. The housing units are not individually metered. The villages do have independent sanitary sewer connections, but the sewers connect to adjacent manholes on the same public sewer main. A brief synopsis of each system follows.
Attachment 10
Memorandum
J:\S-F\210000\216464-01\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\COAST GUARD PROPERTY\2020 04 22 UPDATED UTILITIES MEMO\COAST GAURD UTILITES MEMO 2020 05 05.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 5
Water
The Villages’ domestic and fire water is served by an 8” meter located along the fence line at the western edge of the gravel Little League parking lot across Olivera Rd. The meter is connected to a Contra Costa Water District main. Victory’s water main tees off the Quinault main just west of Olivera. There are two non-CG users connected to the Village’s water service – the Little League fields irrigation service and fire hydrants for the Navy airfield southwest of Victory. Kevin stated that the Villages have sufficient water supply. However, the village’s current occupancy is much lower than it was it was historically. It is unknown if the existing water system could support full occupancy in the present time.
Natural Gas
Gas service for the Villages is from a PG&E gas main in Olivera Rd. The Village’s meter is located in an enclosure behind the sidewalk on Olivera just north of Hamilton Ave. Victory’s gas service tees off of the Quinault main. The size of the gas meter and site piping needs to be verified. However, Kevin noted that the Villages have not had any issues with system capacity Electric
The Villages’ electric meter and service originates from a PG&E pole at the Hamilton / Olivera intersection. Quinault’s electric service is overhead. Victory’s is underground. Size and capacity of the electrical service needs to be verified. However, Kevin noted that the Villages have not had any issues with system capacity.
Sewer
Each village has a 6” sewer service connected to on an existing public sewer main at manholes behind the little league field backstops. The village sewer services are entirely gravity based. There are no pumps or force mains within the private CG system.
Storm Drain
The villages have extremely limited storm drainage, and there is limited public storm drainage infrastructure in the area. Quinault has a single storm drain inlet near the northern portion of the Village. The inlet is connected to a storm drain line of unknown size that runs westerly through a residential property towards Esperanza Drive. Kevin said the site experiences flooding every couple of years. All runoff in Victory is channeled to a detention area in the northwest corner of the village.
Stormwater from the detention basin drains by pipe to the City storm drain system in E Olivera Rd. 3 Gas Pipeline Easement
Easements for three oil pipelines (“hazardous liquid pipelines”), granted in the 1950s and 1960s, run between the two villages. Each of the easements has a width of 16.5’. They run in a largely parallel alignment from the southeastern end of the former CNWS north in the Green Frame along the western border, until reaching Willow Pass Road, at which point the pipelines head west across the Village
Memorandum
J:\S-F\210000\216464-01\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\COAST GUARD PROPERTY\2020 04 22 UPDATED UTILITIES MEMO\COAST GAURD UTILITES MEMO 2020 05 05.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 5
Neighborhood in the airfield area and intersect the Coast Guard property between Victory Village and Quinault Village before continuing in a westerly direction along E Olivera Rd. The general location of the easements is shown in Attachment A.
Today, three high-pressure pipelines run in these easements, operated by Phillips 66 Pipeline, Kinder Morgan/SFPP, and Shell Pipeline respectively.
Activities around the pipelines are subject to regulation at the state and federal levels. At the federal level, the Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Part 195, regulates hazardous liquid pipelines and establishes standards for their design and operation. It makes provisions for the siting of pipelines and provides the following guidance on setbacks and restrictions on land uses in close proximity to a pipeline easement. Part 195 establishes:
No pipeline may be located within 50 feet (15 meters) of any private dwelling, or any industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or assemble, unless it is provided with at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of cover in addition to that prescribed in §195.248 [36-inches below finished grade].
At the state level, the State Fire Marshal serves as the regulatory and enforcement authority over intrastate pipelines. The State Fire Marshall has adopted by reference the aforementioned federal regulations set forth in Part 195. In addition, California Government Code Title 5 (Local Agencies), Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 5.5 establishes the following guidelines for intrastate pipelines:
No structures or improvements may be constructed within a pipeline easement. No structure, wall, or fence adjacent to the easement may be built that would prevent complete and unimpaired surface access to the easement.
No shrubbery or shielding in or along the easement may be built that will impair aerial observation. The easement may be revegetated following pipeline construction and the operator may permit seasonal agriculture, if desired.
Operators are permitted to conduct any necessary activities within their easement, including construct, replace, relocate, repair, or operate the pipeline.
Beyond these regulations, California has also established regulations setting the minimum distance between sites for school facilities and pipelines. Section 14010 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards for construction of school facilities which prevent a school site from being located within 1,500 feet of a pipeline easement that poses a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study.
The exact alignments of the easements and associated pipelines will need to be verified to properly assess their impacts on any potential redevelopment of the CG property.
Memorandum
J:\S-F\210000\216464-01\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\COAST GUARD PROPERTY\2020 04 22 UPDATED UTILITIES MEMO\COAST GAURD UTILITES MEMO 2020 05 05.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 5
4 Utility Infrastructure Reuse Opportunities at Quinault and Victory Villages
Quinault Village
Quinault Village is roughly 55 years old. The utility infrastructure is original and at or nearing the end of its design life. Kevin McDonald reported that they have issues with clogged sewer connections and leaking gas services, etc. In light of that and the regular flooding and overhead electric services, Kevin suggested that if the site were redeveloped, all of Quinault’s utility infrastructure would need to be replaced back to the main connections.
Victory Village
Victory Village was constructed in 1989. The utility infrastructure is roughly 30 years old. It is possible that if Victory were redeveloped, some portion of the backbone utility infrastructure could be reused. A condition assessment survey would be required to confirm the condition, size, and location of the existing utility network prior to determining the viability of reusing any portion of the existing system.
Since the Victory Village utilities are served from the much older Quinault service connections the systems will need to be decoupled if any of the Victory infrastructure is to be reused. Two potential options for the decoupling are:
Option 1: Disconnect services to Quinault Village but keep existing services connections and meters in place for Victory Village.
Pro – Minimal cost and disruption the existing utility system Con – Long service runs from current service locations at Quinault will constrain frontage improvements, and existing services are old, which will increase maintenance and operations costs. Risk – Existing services may be oversized, old and in poor condition, and not configured to allow separation without being replaced.
Option 2: Remove existing services to Quinault and Victory Villages and construct new service connections for Victory on E Olivera Rd
Pro – Creates new services, properly sized, constructed close to Victory Village, minimizing frontage constraints and long-term maintenance costs and insuring efficient routing, siting, and sizing of new service connections
Con – Increased costs compared to Option 1
Risks – Potential construction delays and costs due to utility agency coordination and timing.
In addition to the utility separations, Victory Village will need to comply with current Contra Costa County Stormwater regulations. Most runoff from the site currently drains to a detention area in the northwestern corner of site before exiting to the local storm drain system. The basin does not comply with current stormwater regulations for water quality treatment and is likely undersized to
Memorandum
J:\S-F\210000\216464-01\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\COAST GUARD PROPERTY\2020 04 22 UPDATED UTILITIES MEMO\COAST GAURD UTILITES MEMO 2020 05 05.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 5
accommodate large storm events. A new stormwater conveyance, treatment, and detention system will be required as part of any redevelopment to the Village.
Information shown on this exhibit is diagrammatic and based primarily on phone conversations with USCG Housing staff in April 2014. Utility information has not been field verified and is only representative of assumed conditions.
City of Concord
Engineering – Current Development
Community Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 971-2489
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joan Ryan, Community Reuse Area Planner
CC: Kevin Marstall, PE, City Engineer
FROM: Bruce Davis, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Coast Guard Property Disposition
DATE: November 3, 2020
Joan,
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the Engineering Division’s position and initial recommendations regarding redevelopment of the two former Coast Guard housing locations along Hamilton Avenue and Mt. Hood Circle, referenced here as North Village and South Village, respectively. These recommendations are preliminary, are not necessarily exhaustive, and do not represent final Engineering conditions of approval for the project.
The following summary of recommendations is presented with the understanding that the North Village will be completely redeveloped, without retaining existing structures, roadways, or utilities; and the South Village will either be redeveloped fully, or only partially by rehabilitating the existing structures, roadways, and utility infrastructure.
South Village Rehab Option
In the event that the developer proposes to rehabilitate the existing South Village, we recommend the following project requirements:
1. The existing roads do not conform to current City standards, so if the roads will be retained they shall be privately owned and maintained.
2. Existing private sidewalks within the property shall be brought up to current ADA standards, including curb ramps.
3. Existing public frontage on both sides of E. Olivera shall be added or brought up to current City and ADA standards for the length of the project site.
4. Existing Storm drain and Sanitary Sewer infrastructure will be private.
5. Existing Water infrastructure will be per CCWD requirements.
Attachment 11
City of Concord
Engineering – Current Development
Community Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 971-2489
6. Existing PG&E and Telecommunication infrastructure will be per the appropriate utility company, except that any overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
7. Existing lighting shall be analyzed and brought up to current City lighting/photometric standards.
8. The existing Sanitary Sewer, if retained, shall be analyzed, and brought up to current minimum City (Central Sanitary District) standards for private sewer mains and sewer laterals, including the repair of any deficient conditions.
9. The existing Storm Drain system should be analyzed, and any deficient conditions mitigated.
10. All existing street runoff shall be redirected to a stormwater treatment facility, conforming to current C.3 stormwater guidelines, prior to discharging to the City Storm Drain System.
11. A provision for future EVA access, but not general public access, should be provided at the east road (Kilauea St)
12. Specifically regarding the ball fields on the west side of Olivera, we agree that the water service (and any other utility services) originating on the east side of Olivera should be separated. The ball fields should have separate utility connections than the south village.
South Village / North Village (full redevelopment)
Regarding the North Village site, and in the event that the developer proposes to fully redevelop the South Village site, we recommend the following project requirements:
13. If new roads are constructed to current City standards for right-of-way widths, frontage improvements, etc., Engineering will support accepting them as public roads.
14. Storm drain, sanitary sewer, and street lighting infrastructure, if constructed to current City standards, may be public infrastructure.
15. New water infrastructure and services will be per CCWD requirements.
16. New PG&E and Telecommunication infrastructure will be per the appropriate utility company, and all utilities shall be constructed underground.
17. Roads need to conform to the specific plan for long term circulation to the east with the future build-out.
18. Specifically, the existing northern entrance to North Village needs to be maintained at its current location (Hamilton Ave at Esperanza Dr).
19. Existing public frontage on both sides of E. Olivera shall be added or brought up to current City and ADA standards for the length of the project site.
•
o
o
•
•
•
o
o
o
•
•
Attachment 12
•
•
•
o
•
o
o
o
•
•
•
•
Attachment 14
From: MARC CAREDIO <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:47:08 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Subject: Former Coast Guard housing
Hi Carlyn
I just received the notification about the study session. And was wondering if I could suggest that the city permanently close Hamilton ave the street that feeds in East Sun Terrace. I think it would flood our area with a lot of unnecessary traffic. Especially if they decide to connect a street to the BART station.
Thank you
Marc Caredio
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Correspondence
Coast Guard Property
City Council Study Session
June 23, 2021
Project Planner: Joan Ryan, Principal Planner
(925) 671-3370
[email protected]
Coast Guard Property
• March 3 - the GSA auction on the Property was closed. • June 3 - the property transferred into private ownership. New owners are Eddie Haddad and Georges Maalouf.
• May 27 - the owners submitted a Preliminary Application. 2
Council Study Session/Special Meeting – June 23
Owners requested an expeditious process, and staff determined this Study Session/Special meeting was the best pathway to:
• Provide a public forum for the owners to communicate their plans for the property. • Enable the Concord community and stakeholders to provide feedback. • Allow the Council to give direction to staff and the new owners. 3
Objectives this evening:
• Provide background on the site, the City’s entitlement process, the range of development densities previously considered;
• Allow a presentation by the owners on their initial plans for the Property; • Review prior concepts for the site and consider options for moving forward; • Allow the community to give feedback through public comment; and • Provide an opportunity for the City Council to provide early feedback to the owners and staff for incorporation into their formal applications for the Property. 4
Project Location
5 • Site is located along:
East Olivera Road.
• Project site is
approximately 59 acres.
• Quinault Village (North) Adj. to North Concord
BART
40 duplex buildings 80 total units, single story Community Center Tot lot 2 gates at Hamilton Ave.
Quinault Village
6
Project Location
7 • Victory Village (South)
Adj. to Pixi land/ ballfields)
206 multi-family units
Four-plex, Six-plex, 2-story
Small playground
Basketball court
2 gates - Pyro St./Mars. St.
Victory Village
8
Entitlements Required
• General Plan designation: Military (M)
• Zoning District: Public Quasi-Public (PQP)
- General Plan Amendment/Rezoning will be required.
- Design and Site Review, Tree Removal, Minor Exception, depending upon proposal.
- Current Density: 286 units/50.2 net acres = 5.72 du/net acres. - Consistent with City’s Low-Density designation (2.5-10 du/net acres) 9
Area Plan
10 Coast Guard
property
11 DeNova Plan
12 DeNova Plan
CRP Specific Plan
13 Although not adopted, included
800 units with a range of
densities: • MU-2 (24
-100 du/ac)
• MU-1 (20-75 du/ac)
• R-2 (10-75 du/ac)
• Open Space
Highest density nearest North
Concord BART.
Housing Element/RHNA numbers
• City’s Housing Element Update for sixth cycle (2023-2031) begins Sept. 2021. City must demonstrate adequate capacity.
On May 20, 2021, ABAG approved the Final (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. HCD best practice recommends establishing a buffer for identifying adequate housing sites; requiring the City to plan for (15-30% above RHNA allocation) ~ 6,500 housing units. 14
Preliminary Application – May 27
Phase 1:
• Secure property with on-site security 24 hours a day/7 days a week. • Repair all exterior fences, gates and access points to ensure the safety of the property and adjacent neighborhood.
Phase 2:
• Clean and manicure all exterior yards, landscaping, trees, parking lots. • Will work with PG&E in upgrading transformers.
• Will work with CCWD to ensure adequate water service. • Plan to work with National Exemption Services to sub-meter the living units. • Plan to deliver ready-to-rent units at the rate of 20 units per month. • Tenant improvements to include water heaters, appliances, cabinets, flooring, cosmetics. • Repair three buildings that have been damaged by fire. • Contemplating General Plan Amendment to Low Density (2.5-10 du/net acre) or Medium Density Residential (11-32 du/net acre) and related zoning district. 15
Addendum to Application
Owner’s responses in italics.
Will all units be rented?
• Yes, would renovate and rent 100% of the units. There is no for sale component proposed.
Affordable Housing?
• The project anticipates meeting the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Project reflect circulation, connectivity, complete streets, TOD policies? • Will not be constructing new streets or sidewalks. All streets would remain private as they were under Coast Guard ownership.
16
Addendum to Application
Compliance with adopted Master Plans, i.e Citywide Parks Master Plan, Trails Master Plan, etc.?
• Property has significant internal open space/recreation that served prior residents.
The original development included construction of the Olivera Park across the street.
As a renovation project it is not clear that park obligations apply.
What is your approach to schools?
• Project is a renovation of existing units, we don’t believe that triggers payment of School Impact Fees, but where impact fees are required for new construction (of burned units), applicant will pay those fees.
Addressing Utility connections?
• Retained CBG to review existing site infrastructure. Sewer and storm may need maintenance but are operable. Water system needs to be decoupled from baseball fields and Naval Weapons Station to southeast. Electrical system may need repairs.
Will be working with PG&E in upgrading transformers.
17
18 Addendum to Application
• Owners with their
consultant have:
- Mapped roadways
- Mapped oil pipeline
easements
- Property boundaries
- Determined net acreage as:
• 286 units/50.2 net acres
• 5.72 du/net acres
Preliminary Concepts
• City has significant discretion over the project due to the requirement for a GPA/RZ, due to their existing designations.
Preliminary Concepts
• Range of possibilities for the site, which were included in the staff report for discussion purposes:
1. Renovation (Owner’s Preliminary Application)
2. Redevelopment *
3. Phased Combination
19
Potential Concepts – 1: Renovation
• Owners’ Proposed Approach – Preliminary Application
• Includes renovation of 286 existing units on site (5.7 du/net acre) • Owners have indicated they would follow City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and provide either: 28 units for low-income households (10%) or 17 units to very low-income households (6%). • On June 22 - City’s Building Division inspected a sampling of units to determine their current condition and assist owners in determining their list of priorities.
20
Potential Concepts – 2: Redevelopment
• Prior plans reflected potential for the site with up to 800 units. • Plans included a range of densities, with:
• Denser land uses nearest to BART
• Northern Village – 400 units/10 acres – 40 du/net acre • Southern Village – 400 units/18 acres – 22 du/net acre • Net acreage dependent on width of green buffer, open space extension between villages, road connections, bike/pedestrian connections 21
Potential Concepts – 3: Phased Combination
Phased approach to achieve project goals based on milestones:
1. Initial renovation and leasing of Victory Village for set period of time.
2. Redevelopment of Quinault Village to a density in line with TOD policies.
3. Redevelopment of Victory Village upon conclusion of Phases 1 and 2.
Example:
Entitlements Completed, then:
• Phase 1 – renovation of Victory Village with 206 units (2022-2031) • Phase 2 – redevelopment of Quinault with 480 to 600 units (2025/26 and beyond) • Phase 3 – redevelopment of Victory Village with 430 to 580 new units (2032 and beyond)
22
Questions for Council Consideration
1. Considering the City’s RHNA and the property’s proximity to transit, what density ranges are appropriate?
• Does Council want to weigh in on which, if any, of the three concept approaches presented appear most appropriate for the site?
2. Expectation for affordable housing?
3. Is a veteran’s preference desired for the units, given the history of the site?
4. What is the expectation for a Project Labor Agreement? • Does the expectation change if it is a renovation project vs. a new construction project? 23
Questions for Consideration
5. What is the expectation for connectivity to the CNWS (via connecting road through the CG site), BART and the existing adjacent neighborhoods?
6. What percentage of open space is appropriate?
7. What is the expectation for park and open space improvements on the site?
8. Are off-site improvements at Willow Pass Park still important?
9. Are there other community benefits desired by Council from this project? 24
Questions ?
25
CONCORD VILLAGES
Eddie Haddad & Georges Maalouf
WE WOULD LIKE TO START BY
THANKING THE CITY COUNCIL AND
STAFF FOR YOUR TIME DEDICATED TO
HEARING OUR PLAN OF ACTION
MEET THE TEAM
• Civil Engineer:
Carlson Barbee & Gibson Civil
Engineers
Angelo Obertello, P.E.
• Land Use Counsel:
Pelosi Law Group:
Peter Ziblatt
• Electrical contractor:
Hein Electric
Jim Hein
• Landscape contractor:
Timberland Landscape
Albert Briseno
THE SITE
THE SITE BREAKDOWN
SITE HISTORY AND SUMMARY
• Quinault Village consists of 40 duplex buildings constructed in 1969 including three-bedroom units and four-bedroom units
• Victory Village consists of 42 apartment-style buildings constructed in 1989 – including two-bedroom units and four-bedroom units. All apartments are located in either four-plex or six-plex buildings. • The U.S. Coast Guard purchased the property from the U.S. Navy in 2007 and housed residents there until 2014.
• The Property is not part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station Area Plan.
• The City of Concord offered to purchase the property for $15 million and was not accepted by Coast Guard.
• The Property was sold by the GSA to the highest bidder in March 2021.
• All streets are private streets. Page 103 of 113 Page 142 of 287
EXISTING DENSITY
• 59 Gross Acres
• 50 Net Acres (not counting streets and easement per City Code) • Approximately 15 acres of development are incumbered by expired oil and water main easements
• 286 Units
• 4.8 units per Gross Acre
• 5.7 units per Net Acre
IMMEDIATE ACTION ITEMS
• Secure Site
Landscape Maintenance For
Years of Neglected
Maintenance
Fixing Power Infrastructure
Installing Additional Meters
Improving Drainage
Cutting Down Overgrown
Bushes and Trees
Removing Dead Bushes and
Trees
• Assess & Mobilize
Relocate Water Meters
Repair Transformers
Get Street Lights in Operation
Sanitary Sewer Assessments
Storm Drain Assessments
Natural Gas Assessment
Water System Assessments
Electrical Assessments
-Repairing Meters with PG&E
WATER DISTRICT MAPPING
We are required to move
the water meter across
the street onto the
existing site
EASEMENT MAP
SCOPE OF WORK ON PROJECT
• Majority of units require minor renovations
Paint
Carpet
Appliances
Tile
Repair of vandalized units
Fence off three buildings which have suffered partial fire damage
COMPLETED WORK
• Knox box installation at request of
police/fire department
• Landscaping and tree maintenance
• Securing fences
• Securing units
• Meeting with local/regional agencies
• Retaining CBG to prepare mapping of site
• Pipeline/easements
• We are working with the water district and
Carlson Barbee and Gibson on moving the
water meter to our side of the street, and
adding a meter strictly for the irrigation
line
• We will begin the process of engaging in
talks with 3 easement holders, one of which
has expired
Working on fence
Working with PG&E
Knox box installation
Working on landscaping
ENTITLEMENTS
• Property is Currently Designated “Military” under General Plan
• Property is Currently Designated “Public/Quasi Public” under Zoning Code.
Property requires a General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Amendment to conform the designations to the intended
residential use.
FUTURE PLAN
• Renovations now will ensure the timely delivery of much needed workforce housing and restricted affordable units to the market.
• The Quinault and Victory Village units are “affordable by design” as entry level residential units with fenced yards and private open space unavailable in the marketplace. Their physical condition allows for occupancy in a relatively short time period. • Future redevelopment of the site for higher density housing will be considered as part of the overall Naval reuse project and after resolution of oil and water easement relocation or renewal.
• Longer term strategic planning for redevelopment (including Specific Plan or Development Agreements) are lengthy and time consuming. Allowing renovations and occupancy now and then considering high density redevelopment option later ensures delivery of existing housing to market in short term.
OTHER ITEMS
• Project will conform with City’s Affordable Housing Requirements. • Collaboration with BART to create convenient access to station. • Rehabilitate recreation on sites and improve walking paths on site. • Rehab playgrounds and Recreation Room.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR
CONCERNS
Attachment 5
Coast Guard Site Background (2017-2021)
The former Coast Guard site planning was developed (in coordination with the first master developer) with significant community oversight and input, and included key aspects designed to: 1) assist in alleviating the State’s housing crisis, 2) achieve an adequate number of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA numbers, 3) support a sustainable growth pattern, and 4) provide alternatives to single vehicle car trips by supporting BART ridership numbers within the one-half mile radius of the North Concord BART Station,1 and provide support for the adjacent BART site with the implementation of Assembly Bill 29232. Provisions were made for affordability and housing preferences (seniors and veterans), open space, parks, bicycle and pedestrian access, as well as offsite improvements.
The Coast Guard Property was included in the land use plans prepared by the former master developer (Lennar/FivePoint) of the Concord Naval Weapon Station. A land use diagram detailing the intended use of the Coast Guard Property and the former base was prepared based on the master developer’s assessment of market feasibility and reviewed by staff beginning in early 2017. The land use diagram was also vetted and revised based upon community input at numerous neighborhood and community meetings as well as the Community Advisory Committee meetings through 2018. On August 22, 2018, the City Council considered the land use diagram and directed that a Draft Specific Plan be prepared based on this land use diagram. The development contemplated by the Draft Specific Plan included:
• 800 new units on the Property
• High density nearest to the BART station gradually decreasing to medium density to the south with a green buffer along the western edge and between the villages. • Bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular access via a street and trail network that linked to BART and the Concord Reuse Project open space network.
On September 25, 2018, as part of the master developer selection process for the Coast Guard Property, the City Council reviewed and considered four proposals from interested developers.
DeNova Homes was selected as the master developer and entered into negotiations with the City on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for development of the site in coordination with offering a bid to the General Services Administration (GSA) to purchase the Property.
The development concept that was proposed by DeNova contemplated affordable housing units for seniors, veterans, and families with some units at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The conceptual unit breakdown, which ranged from a total of 745 to 800 units (density of 19.7-21 du/net acre), contemplated by DeNova included:
• 170-185 Affordable Multifamily rental housing units
1 The Station is referenced as “Long Term” for development within BART’s TOD Program Work Plan; 2024 Update, August 2024. 2 AB 2923 refers to state legislation that on September 30, 2018, Governor Brown signed, that affects zoning requirements on existing BART-owned property within ½ mile of BART. AB2923 includes provisions for TOD zoning standards and development streamlining.
Attachment 5
• 270-280 Market Rate Multifamily units (ownership and rentals) • 130-150 Market Rate Townhome Row ownership houses
• 175-185 Small lot, market rate single-family detached ownership units with five units being dedicated to a non-profit, Home Aid Northern California/Contra Costa County Veterans (who would own and operate these five units).
Other public benefits stated in the submittal included a trail system, park/open space (15 acres) improvements (on and off site), bike trails, offsite improvements to Willow Pass Community Park, and exploration of Innovative Transportation Solutions and Technology 2 concepts.
Although the City provided an initial and revised offer to the GSA to purchase the Property, the GSA declined the City’s offer, in favor of pursuing a public sale. On September 10, 2020, to facilitate the sale of the Property, the GSA published an Invitation for Bids and commenced a public auction on October 15, 2020, with a starting minimum bid of $15 million. Prior to the publication of GSA’s Invitation for Bids, the City had posted a variety of information on the City’s website, specific to the Coast Guard site including the City’s goals for the property, existing General Plan and zoning designations, the anticipated entitlement path, prior redevelopment diagrams/analysis and ARUP and other technical memos regarding utilities which were available to all bidders and which was also linked to the GSA’s Invitation for Bids. In addition, similar information was provided to the new owners during the 5-month auction, via e-mail on December 9, 2020, and during a conference call requested with staff in December 2020/January 2021.
On March 3, 2021, after almost 5 months, a final bidder was successful in outbidding other interested parties for the Property with a final bid of $58.4 million. Following the conclusion of the auction, the GSA opened escrow and a 90-day closing period was established for the two parties to complete the necessary documents and close the transaction.
ANNOTATED AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Civic Center
Jill Finn, Chair Garden Conference Room
Jack Moore, Vice Chair 1950 Parkside Drive
Jason Laub Concord, CA 94519
Ronald Leone www.cityofconcord.org
Kirk Shelby
Regular Meeting of the
City of Concord
Design Review Board
Thursday, Garden Conference Room
November 14, 2024 5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present: Meeting called to order by Chair Finn with Board members Laub, Moore and Shelby present.
Board Members Absent: Leone
Staff Present: J. Ryan
Audience Attendance: 7
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. 10/10/24 Meeting Minutes (Continued from the 10/24 meeting) ACTION: Approved (3-0, Laub Abstained); Moore motioned, Shelby seconded.
B. 10/24/24 Meeting Minutes
ACTION: Approved (4-0) Moore motioned, Shelby seconded.
4. STAFF REPORTS – None
Attachment 7
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Concord Crossing (PRE24028) – Considering recommendations for Conceptual Design and Site Review (PRE24028) for Concord Crossing Apartments, a 206-unit apartment project with a 2,100 square foot leasing office/community room on a 25.8 net acre site at 3295 Haleakala Street. The General Plan designation is Military; Zoning classification is PQP (Public/Quasi-Public) and S (Study); APN 111-101-023. Project Planner: Joan Ryan @ (925) 671-3370 or [email protected]
ACTION: Recommended the applicant return with the following information or revisions: 1) Consider improvements to rear facade of buildings, murals may be considered; 2) Ensure details for new and existing planting to prevent sidewalk lifting; 3) Provide additional details to understand the interface between the two villages, including distances and pathway between villages; 4) Explore improvements to floor plans meaningful to occupants, for example adding a shower (Type 1A, Level 2 and Type 1C, Level 2), determining if possible to add a bathroom or shower for fourbedroom units; 5) Provide improvements to front facades, for example floating roof segment at entry (supports) and trellis or other architectural feature above garage and below windows; 6) Explore a color scheme that provides more vibrancy and interest and stop colors at inside corners (not outside); 7) Shutters could be eliminated in favor of improved window trim profiles; 8) Focus on improving the front elevations overall; 9) Pay attention to addressing for all of the units and buildings; 10) Doors should be uniform, provide specification.
6. CORRESPONDENCE – None
7. BOARD CONSIDERATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – Board member Shelby indicted his concern with the Bel Air shopping center at Treat and Clayton Road and the appearance of the area under demolition. The Board questioned whether the City requires submittal of a new permit, prior to demolitions. Vice Chair Moore commented regarding the gray, huge wall on building at Davis and Clayton Road.
8. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS: J. Ryan announced upcoming 11/21 special meeting items, including:
o 1140 Virginia Lane Exterior Modifications - Scott Watkins
o Sunshine House Preschool – Scott Watkins
She noted the 11/27 meeting would be cancelled, and the next regular meeting would be on 12/12. Laub indicated he will not be available for the 11/21 meeting.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 p.m.
1 3 2
4 5
6 1. 5M, San Francisco
2. PIER 70, San Francisco
3. STONESTOWN GALLERIA, San Francisco
4. BLVD, Dublin
5. NEWPARK, Newark
6. LAKESIDE/HORIZON @ ONE LAKE, Fairfield
7. PATINA/COPPERLEAF/FOUNDRY @ NAPA PIPE, Napa
8. SUNDANCE/MOONSTONE @ ROSEWOOD, Morgan Hill
7 8
02/20/2024
CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN
750 0 750 1500 3000 Feet
CONTRA
COSTA CANAL
Exhibit A-1
FORMER
COAST
GUARD
SITE
THURGOOD MARSHALL REGIONAL
PARK
Todos Santos
Plaza
Downtown
Concord
SALVIO ST
CONCORD BLVD
WILLOW PASS
PORT CHICAGO HWY
PORT CHICAGO HWY
BAILEY RD
DENKINGER RD
HWY 4
EVORA RD
OLIVERA RD
OLIVERA RD
WILLOW PASS
TOURNAMENT
SPORTS PARK
CITY WIDE
PARK
FUTURE VISITORS
CENTER
PROP. COMM.
CTR & LIBRARY
COUNTY
CONVEYANCE
PROPOSED FIRE STATION/
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
PROPOSED
OFF-SITE FIRE
STATION
LOW DENSITY RES. (RL)
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC)
MEDIUM DENSITY RES.
(RM)
MIXED-USE MEDIUM
(MUM)
MIXED-USE HIGH (MUH)
CAMPUS DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
OVERLAY
SUBSTATION & HIGHWAY
SETBACK
STEEP SLOPE AREAS
COMMERCIAL FLEX (CF)
OTHER PARKS & OS
GREENWAYS
OPEN SPACES TYPES
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS
CITYWIDE PARKS
CONSERVATION OS
Proposed school locations are subject
to school district approval, and may be
shifted and relocated accordingly
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
KINNE
BLVD
MT. DIABLO CREEK
RESTORATION CORRIDOR
POTENTIAL CREEK
CROSSINGS
FORMER COAST GUARD
SITE & BART PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED BIKE &
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
CAMPUS DISTRICT
BOUNDARY
MT. DIABLO CREEK
RESTORATION CORRIDOR
Attachment 8
1 3 2
4 5
6 1. 5M, San Francisco
2. PIER 70, San Francisco
3. STONESTOWN GALLERIA, San Francisco
4. BLVD, Dublin
5. NEWPARK, Newark
6. LAKESIDE/HORIZON @ ONE LAKE, Fairfield
7. PATINA/COPPERLEAF/FOUNDRY @ NAPA PIPE, Napa
8. SUNDANCE/MOONSTONE @ ROSEWOOD, Morgan Hill
7 8
02/20/2024
CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN WITH PHASING
750 0 750 1500 3000 Feet
Tournament Sports Park and City Wide Park
to be phased and programmed in the Specific
Plan.
Proposed school locations are subject to
school district approval, and may be shifted
and relocated accordingly.
Infrastructure 53.4 ac
Housing 1,612 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 1,378) 620,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 537 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 0) 4 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 76.2 ac
Infrastructure 44.7 ac
Housing 1,388 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 0) 0 gsf
Innovation District (Jobs: 3,778) 1,700,000 gsf
Campus District (Jobs: 8,250) 3,000,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 467 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 196) 23 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 182.8 ac
Infrastructure 34.3 ac
Housing 1,735 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 222) 100,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 581 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 196) 11 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 128.1 ac
Infrastructure 35.1 ac
Housing 2,185 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 0) 0 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 721 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 186) 10 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 166.2 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 175 ac
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
KEY
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
TOURNAMENT SPORTS PARK & CITYWIDE PARK
PHASE 3
Infrastructure 29.3 ac
Housing 2,284 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 1,778) 680,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 762 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 372) 25 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 102.4 ac
Exhibit A-2
POTENTIAL CREEK
CROSSINGS
THURGOOD MARSHALL REGIONAL
PARK
Todos Santos
Plaza
Downtown
Concord
SALVIO ST
CONCORD BLVD
WILLOW PASS
PORT CHICAGO HWY
PORT CHICAGO HWY
BAILEY RD
HWY 4
OLIVERA RD
OLIVERA RD
WILLOW PASS
TOURNAMENT
SPORTS PARK
CITY WIDE
PARK
LOW DENSITY RES. (RL)
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC)
MEDIUM DENSITY RES.
(RM)
MIXED-USE MEDIUM
(MUM)
MIXED-USE HIGH (MUH)
CAMPUS DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
OVERLAY
SUBSTATION & HIGHWAY
SETBACK
STEEP SLOPE AREAS
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FORMER COAST GUARD
SITE & BART PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
PHASE BOUNDARY
COMMERCIAL FLEX (CF)
OTHER PARKS & OS
GREENWAYS
OPEN SPACES TYPES
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS
CITYWIDE PARKS
CONSERVATION OS
PROPOSED BIKE &
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
DENKINGER RD
EVORA RD
KINNE
BLVD
COUNTY
CONVEYANCE
CONTRA
COSTA CANAL
FORMER
COAST
GUARD
SITE
CAMPUS DISTRICT
BOUNDARY
PROPOSED
OFF-SITE FIRE
STATION
MT. DIABLO CREEK
RESTORATION CORRIDOR
MT. DIABLO CREEK
RESTORATION CORRIDOR
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
PROPOSED FIRE STATION/
POTENTIAL POLICE
SUBSTATION
4B
5B
2C
2C
1A
1A
3A
3A
1C
2B
3B
4A
2A
5A
2A
1B
2B
Attachment 3
1 3 2
4 5
6 1. 5M, San Francisco
2. PIER 70, San Francisco
3. STONESTOWN GALLERIA, San Francisco
4. BLVD, Dublin
5. NEWPARK, Newark
6. LAKESIDE/HORIZON @ ONE LAKE, Fairfield
7. PATINA/COPPERLEAF/FOUNDRY @ NAPA PIPE, Napa
8. SUNDANCE/MOONSTONE @ ROSEWOOD, Morgan Hill
7 8
02/20/2024
CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN
Tournament Sports Park and City Wide Park
to be phased and programmed in the Specific
Plan.
Proposed school locations are subject to
school district approval, and may be shifted
and relocated accordingly.
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 175 ac
Infrastructure 53.4 ac
Housing 1,612 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 1,378) 620,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 537 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 0) 4 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 76.2 ac
Infrastructure 44.7 ac
Housing 1,388 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 0) 0 gsf
Innovation District (Jobs: 3,778) 1,700,000 gsf
Campus District (Jobs: 8,250) 3,000,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 467 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 196) 23 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 182.8 ac
Infrastructure 34.3 ac
Housing 1,735 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 222) 100,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 581 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 196) 11 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 128.1 ac
Infrastructure 35.1 ac
Housing 2,185 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 0) 0 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 721 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 186) 10 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 166.2 ac
Infrastructure 29.3 ac
Housing 2,284 Units
Commercial (Jobs: 1,778) 680,000 gsf
Inclusionary Housing 762 Units
Community Fac. \ Set Asides (Jobs: 372) 25 ac
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands 102.4 ac
750 0 750 1500 3000 Feet
Exhibit A-3
THURGOOD MARSHALL REGIONAL
PARK
Todos Santos
Plaza
Downtown
Concord
SALVIO ST
CONCORD BLVD
WILLOW PASS
PORT CHICAGO HWY
PORT CHICAGO HWY
BAILEY RD
HWY 4
OLIVERA RD
OLIVERA RD
WILLOW PASS
TOURNAMENT
SPORTS PARK
CITY WIDE
PARK
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
KEY
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
CITYWIDE PARKS
PHASE 3
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FORMER COAST GUARD
SITE & BART PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
PHASE BOUNDARY
DENKINGER RD
KINNE
BLVD
EVORA RD
COUNTY
CONVEYANCE
CONTRA
COSTA CANAL
FORMER
COAST
GUARD
SITE
MT. DIABLO CREEK
RESTORATION CORRIDOR
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
KEY
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
PHASE 3
5A
5B
2A
1A
1A
3A
3A
1C
2B
4A
3B
2C
4B
2C
2A
1B
2B
TOURNAMENT SPORTS PARK & CITYWIDE PARK
Attachment 3
Former Coast Guard Site- Photos
Victory Village looking northeast
Victory Village looking west
Quinault Village looking northwest toward BART site
Quinault Village looking south
Attachment 6
Questions from Council, June 23, 2021
Birsan – want to hear from owner; we don’t own the land.
Obringer – How is HCD treating these units, will we get credit or partial credit for the renovation of these units?
Hoffmeister – I want to verify the units are seismically safe and examine fire/safety, were the units built to a specific code?
Pursley then noted they could research to see if there was documentation to show the units met any requirements for a specific code, but that may be difficult to do. He also provided a brief summary of the units. He noted, they could provide a process to give them a way in, by Indicating they would look for substandard/dangerous issues.
Hoffmeister-What is this issue of downsizing an 8-inch water line to a 2-inch? Why would that be done if plans are to intensify in future. George clarified it would be two 2-inch, then there was confusion and talking over each other.
Applicant indicated they can look at recapturing the property and are open to future development, but the current goals are for renovation, want to see what the plans become for the Navy piece.
Birsan – the timing will be important of rental vs. redevelopment; depends on NWS, want to be coordinated with CNWS. Displacement is an issue. Take a look at how tenants may get priority into new units and a phase in on rents so they are able to stay.
Birsan- What are you thinking in terms of access to BART, for a gateway at the wall? Could be a coded gate like some of the HOAs.
Birsan – want the affordable spread out and a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedrooms that are affordable. No one is building family style units; this would be an accent to the community, you would be heroes.
Birsan – fencing on the navy side of property, is it secure, don’t want kids out with the cows. Concern is kids get into the CNWS once occupied. Reconsider the base side.
Applicant - indicated security is patrolling.
Birsan – would be good to have bike lanes in project.
Birsan – being able to have an overlay with approvals in place with zoning overlay, may be a path forward.
Obringer – You mention affordability by design, yet your rents are $2,800-$3,200, which bedroom size is that for or is that an average? The community is concerned with affordability and wants to understand the marketing plan.
Applicant – That was 6 months ago, let us go back and take a more specific look at it.
Obringer – What other projects have you been involved with? Eddie – SF, high volume experience; George – Commercial and Single Family.
Attachment 6
Applicant – timing of the CNWS will be important for us, 12,000 units is a major project. We want to know what the product will be before we develop the site, that’s why we are patient to wait.
Obringer – concerns with what is plan for neighborhood in terms of amenities? What about outreach? Applicant -Neighborhood meeting can be held with an open house for neighbors.
Obringer – It needs to be community engagement before plans are finalized and you submit formal application.
Obringer – What is your experience with labor unions?
Applicant -We have a trusted contractor who is union who is a trusted advisor. We have also been successful hiring local contractors; all folks working now are local, Jim Hein and Albert.
Council – Suggest a partnership with the building trades.
Hoffmeister - What are your thoughts on improvements to the green buffer, a veteran’s center had been mentioned before, what are your plans?
Applicant -If we can help the ball field out, we can do so, we have heard the meter could be up to $176K Both villages have A/C
Vice Mayor Aliano
What would we do with removing individuals in units once redeveloping? - We would want to follow best practice on how to relocate. - Don’t know that both sides would be demolished at same time; could perhaps relocate to north village. Could look at other apartments that I get
- We don’t want redevelopment scenario to hinder the renovation of the units Tells me you are willing to go thru a negotiation on an agreement with staff.
Hoffmeister – Are these still active pipelines?
George-they all have 50-year terms, the others allow for relocation if you have a planned development.
Private company on this project, partnership for 5 years, but family friends for quite some time.
We have a housing shortage, why wait 5-10 years down the line? Applicant-Need time to relocate the oil pipeline easements. Worth it to wait to resolve the easement issue. If we were to propose 800 units going up? There needs to be a larger infrastructure plan. Then need to plan in concert with the Specific Plan.
You realize environmental review would be for full project? It sounds like you want two completely different steps.
Access to BART site at wall would be for pedestrians? Yes, could require pass code.
Where are you at with labor unions? Would like you to work with the Contra Costa Labor Trades Council. Aliano concurred.
Attachment 6
Displacement issue needs to be addressed, regarding going in at low rates as a marketing tool and then raising for more money.
Applicant - we will come back with a better, clear answer.
Even at market rate, we are getting hit on with complaints because they are getting displaced by tenants outside of the area, with higher rents. How do you keep rents low.
Would like to see a plan when they submit and plans in the event of a Concept 3.
Applicant -New product costs more than existing product. You will not see 3 and 4-bedroom units. We are patient for what comes in the future. We are not in a rush for redevelopment if construction costs are too high, want to be strategic.
All have A/C? If not would they be willing to install A/C at Quinault; E-both have central A/C.
McGallian
So, you spent $58 million, what is renovation cost budget? Applicant -In discussions with PG&E for rehabbing the electrical grid, and there are two options there.
Difficult to nail costs down now.
Applicant -Working w/Angelo and CCWD on moving the meter and separate for irrigation only. Ballpark McGallian - Paint, carpet, appliances, your estimate is less than I thought, I expected $35K/unit.
Clubhouse $500K to $1M; landscaping same, irrigation same Applicant - PG&E still needs to provide us information regarding the options Applicant -Ideal scenario, address community involvement process, then a MOU on future development based on milestones tied to CNWS.
Applicant -In easement language, the pipelines would need to pay to relocate, but this will take time.
Obringer – wants to hear more about road connections and hear more from neighborhoods.
Applicant -Road from CNWS is not something we have proposed. This will take away from productive land.
Hoffmeister-Would you be opposed to a Development Agreement that would include a road? Applicant -Premature at this point, doesn’t know at this time, would we be compensated for the road, there’s lots of discussion to take place. The market value is different at $15 M you can probably afford a road.
Public Comment
George Fullmore – don’t need market rate housing, but we do need help with affordable housing.
Paying $2800-3,000 for units are not what is needed, would encourage you to partner with an affordable developer.
Attachment 6
Rick Munoz – Concord American Little League, interested in the additional housing. Refunded all of the fees, back to the families. Decoupling of the water service.
Just completed a $4,000 water irrigation upgrade. Wanted to voice concern with the new meter fee of $175K and construction. This would be catastrophic if water is cut off. Would like Concord little league to be kept in communication with the
Laura Nakamura, Concord Alliance. Based on the Housing Element presentation, meeting those goals was a huge priority for me, but then we got to the point where we were talking about tenants in homes being pushed out over ten years. Let’s look at tenant action purchase act.
Cora Mitchell, would like to encourage Council to take their time. Developer should take into account that any proposal should build upon the existing infrastructure and institutions that we already enjoy.
Agree that the impact bracket for focus is the lower income because the availability is very small.
Suzanne – Looks forward to the outreach, lives in Holbrook Heights, backs to Victory Village, one concern is traffic, would like to hear more about the plans. We are 931 single family homes, down the street there are 220 apartments being built by the Concord BART station, it’s the traffic, noise, congestion and stress. There are impacts, so looking forward to the open houses.
Dave McCuen, what is the plan for the buffer along Esperanza Drive? End of public comment at 9:09 pm
Vice Mayor Aliano
1 is a definite no, 2 is a definite no for owners, so open to Concept 3, but not willing to give up the GPA/RZ process, option 3 depends on bringing owners to table and coming to an agreement to see that you are hear for the long term. How do you plan to address the tenants.
Yes want affordable housing but want to discuss with owners
3. Yes on veterans preference.
4. Yes, expectations, but with new construction.
5. Yes to Concord BART, thru negotiation.
6. Won’t get specific, but to be negotiated
7/8. OS, Willow Pass Park, Pixi Play land, would love to see some TLC and focus attention on that park.
9. None at moment. PLA matters most with Park, and retaining our land use oversight/authority. Want to make sure that tenants are within safe units and living conditions. Do not want something akin to the ghost ship fire in Oakland. Want to negotiate and appreciate your time.
Plan needs to be in writing.
McGallian
Overall, we are aligned with Vice-Mayor, and aligned with Concept 3.
Attachment 6
Affordable by design component, challenge that concept, want to understand that more. How can more the $3,000 be reference as truly affordable.
Two, three and four bedrooms is unique in this City. Could be tricky with displacement. Seniors could be tricky if 3 and 4 bedroom, that unit mix may not be appropriate for seniors.
Veterans with families, yes could be supported.
Condos are very rare here in Concord.
If they pass the test of units being safe, could be open to renovation of Quinault.
Obringer
Would like to see 25% affordable housing as the goal.
Wants a proper risk assessment and potential soil contamination.
Would support Concept 3, but only renovation of southern village.
Want you to look at RFQ language for the Concord First language.
Southern village has a large buffer, but northern part needs some thought.
Adding bike lanes, want protected bike lane, not a sharrow but a cycle track.
Still have a lot of questions, just understanding that this is just the first discussion.
Want affordable housing for seniors, there is a dearth of options.
Hoffmeister
Little league has an ongoing bill for the water, and want to see what type of partnership can be created.
Share the other comments.
Concern with allowing renovation without having the Coast Guard property and Navy property to be integrated to each other and the existing neighborhoods. Want to see what that Development Agreement looks like, concerned with the follow thru. Never has done a project like this before and no California experience. Have trepidation about the follow thru, but willing to see how those details can be tied down.
Concerned with structural and soils and oil pipelines, these buildings do not appear to meet the standards for setbacks with the pipelines.
Do not want children or others out onto the Navy Base, until proper remediation.
Important to work with labor trades and what community benefits may be put forward into a Development Agreement.
Long term plan looking at a min. 200 foot buffer, I know DeNova was talking 50 feet, but believe 200 should be held to.
DeNova had 15 acres of Open Space, you may look at Bocce courts, picnic areas.
Attachment 6
Veterans and seniors need to be looked at.
Displacement needs to be examined. Want to hear more about this piece.
Would be nice to see Esperanza Drive to get more aesthetically fence style.
Birsan
Should be able to refurbish all units.
Should have an agreement to discuss future increased density, that is mutually agreeable. Don’t want to tie them down, want to have flexibility, which makes it more economically viable.
Prefer 3, with idea of building flexibility and increasing our RHNA numbers. $3,000 is affordable by design?
More inclined to go with as many of the lower income as we can, because there is a need.
Yes, veteran’s preference.
Agree with Tim that these are not consistent with seniors.
Yes, union friendly town. We want you to work it out with trades.
BART access is huge benefit.
We want little league supported, figure it out.
I had supported the road going thru the property, to provide access to BART. Should be a separate conversation when we get there. Three parties involved BART and new developer. You own the land now, so road.
Neighbors and buffer zone, understand it, will need to work out with neighbors, depends on eventual design.
Echo bocce ball, basket ball, other recreation, improvements to WP Park would be most welcome.
Local improvements will increase the asset value of your site.
Community rooms, with community stage for concerts would be nice to plan for a couple hundred people for a concert.
Want this to work, we need housing, family housing is one thing we don’t have $3,000 and below.
Have an issue with displacement, need to figure it out with a plan.
Want to be realistic and reasonable. Know people in the community and traffic concerns. We are seeing schools lose population.
Advocate for 25% on base, but here we may need to be more reasonable.
Safety also a concern, but should also be yours, want a robust health inspection, and so we need this to work and I would also like to remind everyone that this is a cooperative effort. We always get great ideas out of our neighborhood meetings.
Attachment 6
Look forward to your extensive community outreach.
McGallian – Summary
Looks like everyone is in favor of Concept 3 being further developed to see if it is something that could move forward.
Hoffmeister-This is the option, most interested in hearing about. I want to be clear, I need more information.
E-want to fast track this and expedite next steps. So we can start renovating.
Georges provided a list of next steps
• Want to get a better idea of relocation policy
• Come back to you on pricing comparison
• Reach out to labor unions
• Get units cleaned up, invite people over
• Meet with Rick Munoz and CCWD to determine how we need to modify the meter situation • Staff will get back together with you and make sure that everything is captured properly.
Hoffmeister-They understand this is still a GPA/RZ, this is still a 1-2 year process before they can begin renting units.
McGallian – we have told them, staff has told them.
Jim Hein, Hein Electric provided some history and information regarding the units.
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
PREPARED FOR:
Q Village LLC
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, NV 89101
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2250 Ninth St. Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
October 2024
Attachment 10
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 10
Tree Preservation Guidelines 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence 3
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 11
Attachments
Tree Assessment Map
Tree Assessment Form
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Introduction and Overview
EVA Architects is preparing plans for the renovation of the former Coast Guard Site in Concord, CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F.A. The Bartlett Expert Tree Company) was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for trees at this location to assist with planning and future development.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.
2. Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on site plans provided by the client.
3. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on December 5, 6, and 12, 2022, and January 3, 2023. The assessment included all trees measuring 4” and larger in diameter located within the project area and adjacent trees whose canopy overhangs the project area. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species.
2. Tagging trees and recording locations on a map.
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 2 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees
The former Coast Guard property is
approximately 59.41 acres. Current site use
includes two villages of unoccupied housing
units, a community center, office, maintenance
building, as well as associated parking,
landscaping, and infrastructure. In the
southern portion of the property, the Victory
Village apartment buildings encircle Mt. Hood
Circle. Developed in 1989, Victory Village
contains 355 trees included in this report
(Photo 1).
To the north is Quinalt Village, where 40 duplex
buildings border Hamilton Avenue. Developed
in 1965, Quinalt Village contains 261 trees.
Dozens of mature, large stature trees including
California native species western sycamore,
California Bay, coast live oak, and valley oak
can be seen there (Photo 2).
Thirty-two (32) trees were located outside the west chainlink property fence, adjacent to E. Olivera Rd. These trees were below utility lines, and many had been topped (Photo 3).
Photo 1. (above) View of Victory Village
entrance from E. Olivera St. facing east.
Photo 2. (left) River red gum #419, located
in Quinalt Village, was especially
impressive in size and condition.
Photo 3. Aleppo pine #7 had been
topped for utility clearance.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 3 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Six hundred forty-eight (648) trees representing twenty-seven species were assessed (Table 1).
Overall, 341 trees were in good condition, 184 were in fair condition, 121 were in poor condition, and two were dead. In general species were ornamental, non-native and commonly observed in the region. Native species included Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak, valley oak, California bay, and western sycamore and accounted for approximately one quarter (24%) of the total population. Trees #498 and 584 were located off-site but were included because their canopy extended into the project area. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments).
Table 1: Tree condition and frequency of occurrence.
Coast Guard Site. Concord, CA.
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Red horsechestnut Aesculus x carnea 1 2 - 6 9
Camphor Cinnamomum camphora - 2 7 6 15
Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - - - 3 3
River red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis - - - 5 5
Lemon-scented gum Eucalyptus citriodora - - 1 - 1
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon - 57 65 2 124
Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - - 12 12
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - 18 21 1 40
Mulberry Morus alba - 17 27 2 46
Olive Olea europaea - 1 - - 1
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis - 8 19 10 37
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa - 2 16 99 117
London plane Platanus x hispanica - - 2 125 127
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii - 5 3 1 9
Plum Prunus domestica 1 3 1 - 5
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii - 1 5 1 7
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 1 6 15 22
Holly oak Quercus ilex - - - 14 14
Valley oak Quercus lobata - 1 4 9 14
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius - - 1 - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 1 5 8 14
Windmill palm Trachycarpus fortunei - - - 2 2
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - - 1 4 5
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila - 2 - - 2
California bay Umbellularia californica - - - 1 1
Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta - - - 15 15
Total 2 121 184 341 648
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 4 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company London plane was the most common species with 127 trees (19% of the population). Most (125) trees were in good condition (98%) with good form and a full healthy crown. Two planes were in fair condition. Age and size ranged from young to semi-mature and from 6 to 18 inches in trunk diameter. The trees lined Mt. Hood Circle, Mars St., and Pyro St. (Photo 4).
Red ironbark was the next most common species
with 124 trees representing approximately 19% of
the population. The ironbarks were located along
the outer perimeter of the buildings present in
Victory Village. They appeared to serve as a wind
break. Trees were in good (2 trees), fair (65 trees),
and poor (57 trees) condition. Most of the trees
(119 of 124) were single stem. Age ranged from
semi-mature to mature with an average diameter of
22 inches. Overall, the trees had poor form and
branch structure with a history of large branch
failure (Photo 5).
Photo 4. View of Mt. Hood Cir. bordered on either side by London plane trees.
Photo 5. Large branch failures were common among
the red ironbark. Note the stem failure in tree #192
(red circle).
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 5 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Ninety-nine (99) of 117 Western sycamores were in
good condition, with 16 fair and 2 poor. Age and
size ranged from semi-mature to mature with trunk
diameters from 9 to 49 inches. Sycamores in good
condition had good structure and form. Of the trees
in fair and poor condition, half (9 trees) had been
topped. All the sycamores had varying degrees of
boring damage on their trunk. This damage is
usually cosmetic and not a problem on vigorous
trees. It may become more problematic when trees
are drought stressed (Photo 6 & 7).
Mulberry comprised approximately 7% of
the population (46 trees). Trees were
young to mature in development with an
average trunk diameter of 23 inches. The
mulberries were in fair (27 trees) and poor
(17 trees) condition with tree #256 and
443 in good. Many of the mulberries had
small to extensive trunk and branch decay
which is typical of the species.
Forty (40) glossy privets were located
directly adjacent to residences and as
screening along fence lines. Condition
was largely either fair (21 trees) or poor
(18 trees). Tree #550 was in good
condition. The privets were young to
mature in development with an average
trunk diameter of 16 inches. Most (33
trees) privets had multiple stems, and 7
trees were single-stem. Trees in fair and
poor condition had moderate to severe
twig and branch dieback and poor
structure (Photo 8).
Photo 6. (left)
Western
sycamore
#514 had bark
damage from
boring holes.
This was
common on
many of the
western
sycamore
trees.
Photo 7. (above). Western sycamore
#415 was in good condition.
Photo 8. Glossy privet #555 was in poor
condition with moderate twig and branch dieback
in the crown.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 6 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Aleppo pine represented approximately 6% of the population (37 trees). Trees were scattered throughout the project area and adjacent to the sidewalk along E. Olivera Rd. Half the pines were in fair condition (19 trees) with 10 good and 8 poor. Age and size ranged from young to mature and from 8 inches to 38 in trunk diameter.
Of 22 coast live oaks, fifteen (15) were in good condition, with 6 fair, and tree #588 poor. Trees were young to mature in development with an average trunk diameter of 16 inches. Oaks in good condition had dense crowns and good structure (Photo 9). Trees in fair condition had defects such as twig and branch dieback and poor structure.
Fourteen of 15 camphors were located throughout the property in groups of 3 to 5. Tree #25 was a single specimen. Condition ranged from good (6 trees) to fair (7 trees), with trees #25 and 357 being poor. Trees were young to semi-mature in development. Trunk diameter ranged from 7 to 15 inches. Most (10 trees) had small twig and branch dieback and a slightly thin crown.
Twelve (12) of 15 Mexican fan palms were located in an irregular row in a vacant portion of the property. The palms were young to mature in development. The extent of brown trunk ranged from 3 to 30 feet. All trees were in good condition with a full healthy crown.
The 14 holly oaks were in good condition with a dense round crown. Trees were young to mature in development with an average trunk diameter of 19 inches.
Photo 9. Coast live oak #511 was an excellent specimen tree with good form and structure, and a dense wide-spreading crown.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 7 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Fourteen (14) coast redwoods were located in groups of 2 or more excluding tree #141.
Redwoods were in good (8 trees), and fair (5 trees) condition, with tree #74 poor. Trees were semi-mature in development with an average trunk diameter of 19 inches. All redwoods had good upright form and structure typical of the species.
Thirteen (13) valley oaks were
located on the property. Offsite tree #498, whose crown overhung the property, was
included (Photo 10). Age and
size ranged from semi-mature
to mature and from 10 to 45
inches in trunk diameter. Most
(9) oaks were in good
condition, with 4 fair, and tree
#46 poor.
Crape myrtle (12 trees) comprised
approximately 1% of the population.
All trees were young in development
and in good condition. Most (11) of
the myrtles were single-stem and tree
#549 had multiple stems.
Red horsechestnuts (9 trees) were
scattered along Hamilton Ave. Trees
were young to semi-mature in
development with an average trunk
diameter of 11 inches. Condition
ranged from good (6 trees) to poor (2
trees) with tree #465 dead.
Horsechestnuts in good condition had
round form with healthy new growth.
Trees #468 and 619 were all but
dead.
Nine (9) Fremont cottonwoods were
located on the interior of Mt. Hood
Circle. Condition was generally either
poor (5 trees) or fair (3 trees) with tree
#370 being good. Trees were mature
in development with an average trunk
diameter of 33 inches. Cottonwoods
in fair and poor condition had various
defects such as moderate twig and
branch dieback, a history of branch
failure, and decay (Photo 11).
Photo 10. Valley oak #498
was located off-site. Its widespreading branches overhung the property fence on two
sides.
Photo 11. Fremont cottonwood #378 (left) had
multiple branch failures (red circles).
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 8 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Of 7 evergreen pears, 5 were in
fair condition, tree #69 was good,
and tree # 111 poor. Trees were
semi-mature in development with
an average trunk diameter of 14
inches. In general, trees had
good form and a full round crown
(Photo 12). Four (4) pears were
single stem and three trees had
multiple stems. Overall, the pears
had poor branch structure with
narrow crowded unions typical of
the species.
All 5 river red gums were in good
condition. Trees were mature in
development with an average
trunk diameter of 64 inches. The
gums were especially memorable
large specimen trees.
Five (5) Chinese elms were
present. Condition was either good (4 trees) or fair (tree #459). Elms were mature in development and trunk diameter ranged from 24 to 33 inches. Trees had a full wide spreading crown.
Three (3) plums were in poor condition with extensive decay. Tree #457 was fair with a healthy crown, and tree #47 was dead. The plums were mature in development with an average trunk diameter of 17 inches.
The remaining species were represented by three trees or fewer:
• Italian cypresses #595 – 597 were in good condition. They were semi-mature with an average trunk diameter of 9 inches.
• Windmill palms #610 and 611 stood sentry to a residential entrance. The palms were in good condition with a brown trunk height of approximately 10 feet. • Siberian elms #36 and 37 were in poor condition with significant twig and branch dieback. • Lemon - scented gum #82 was in fair condition with a sparse upper crown. It was mature in development and measured 27 inches in diameter.
• Olive #583 was in poor condition with live foliage mostly from sprouts at the base. It was mature in development with a trunk diameter of 17 inches. • Brazilian pepper #366 had multiple stems that originated at the base. It was in fair condition with poor leaf color.
• California bay #584 was located off-site. It was in good condition with a dense crown with branches that extended to the ground. The bay was mature in development and was approximately 48 inches in diameter.
Photo 12. The trunk on evergreen pear #117 was nearly
horizontal. Despite the unusual structure, the tree had a dense healthy crown.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 9 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company The City of Concord Development Code 18.310.020(A) currently defines "protected trees" as follows, which includes heritage trees:
A. Protected Trees. A protected tree is:
1. Any of the following listed native trees with a diameter of 12 inches or more as measured 54 inches above the ground (e.g., diameter at breast height) or a multistemmed native tree on the list below where the sum of all stem diameters is 12 inches or more as measured 54 inches above the ground: valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Q. douglasii), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
2. Other trees with a diameter of 24 inches or more as measured 54 inches above the ground (e.g., diameter at breast height) or more or a multi-stemmed nonnative tree where the sum of all stem diameters is 24 inches or more as measured 54 inches above the ground;
3. Any tree which has been previously designated as a heritage tree by planning commission resolution;
4. A tree required to be planted, relocated, or preserved as a condition of approval of a tree permit or other discretionary permit, and/or as environmental mitigation for a discretionary permit; and
5. A tree with a trunk diameter of six inches or more or one component trunk of a multistemmed tree with a diameter of four inches or more as measured 54 inches above the ground that is located within the structure setback of creeks or streams as defined in CDC 18.305.040(A) (Structure Setbacks for Unimproved Channels).
The City of Concord also defines “non-protected” tree as: Eucalyptus, Acacia, Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), palm (Phoenix spp., Washingtonia spp., etc.), privet (Ligustrum spp.), unless such tree has been specifically designated a “Heritage Tree” by action of the Planning Commission.
The City has designated five (5) specific trees as Heritage Trees. These trees are identified by Planning Commission resolution (current list available on City’s website:
https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/749/List-of-City-Heritage-Trees-PDF).
None of the assessed trees have been identified as Heritage Trees.
By this definition, 218 of the trees qualified as Protected. Protected status of individual trees is provided in the Tree Assessment. Removed Protected trees are to be replaced at a minimum replacement ratio of 3:1 per CMC 18.310.060.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 10 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for longterm health, structural stability, and longevity within the proposed development.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, coast redwoods with a full healthy crown will tolerate impacts from construction better than redwoods that are drought stressed. Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, Aleppo pine #228 had basal decay on two sides and had low suitability for preservation.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast redwood, red horsechestnut, and coast live oak are tolerant of root severance and general construction impacts while Fremont cottonwood is intolerant. Callery pear and valley oak are moderate in response. Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young to semi-mature coast live oaks would be better able to generate new tissue and to respond to change than mature oak #338.
Invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Concord is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Of the assessed species, Mexican fan palm is moderately invasive. River red gum and glossy privet have limited invasiveness.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 11 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
Coast Guard Site. Concord, CA
High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Three hundred twenty-five (325) trees had high suitability for preservation: 125 London planes, 96 western sycamores, 16 coast live oaks, 15 Mexican fan palms, 13 valley oaks, 12 coast redwoods, 12 crape myrtles, 11 holly oaks; Aleppo pines #1, 52, 112, 113, 140, and 149; red horsechestnuts #466, 474, 553, 554, 621, and 646; river red gums #419, 438, 450, 455, and 604; camphors #48 – 50 and 375; Chinese elms #446, 499, and 582, and California bay #584.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category. Sixty-three (63) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: 16 Aleppo pines, 10 western sycamores; camphors #355, 356, 358, 359, 367 – 369, 376, and 377; coast live oaks #404, 589, 591, and 644; mulberries #256, 443, 472, and 473; holly oaks #399, 401, and 403; Italian cypresses #595 – 597; red ironbarks #27, 32, and 38; evergreen pears #69 & 117; Fremont cottonwoods #352 and 370; London planes #26 and 109; windmill palms #610 and 611, Chinese elm #420, coast redwood #171, and glossy privet #550.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Two hundred sixty (260) trees had low suitability for preservation: 121 red ironbarks, 42 mulberries, 39 glossy privets, 15 Aleppo pines, 11 western sycamores, Fremont cottonwoods #372, 373, 378 – 381, and 386; evergreen pears #43, 44, 97, 111, and 151; plums #47, 457, 556, 557, and 592; red horsechestnuts #465, 468, and 619; camphors #25 and 357; coast live oaks #225 and 588; Siberian elms #36 and 37; Brazilian pepper #366, Chinese elm #459, coast redwood #74, lemon-scented gum #82, olive #583, and valley oak #46.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 12 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. Potential impacts to trees from development include root loss, surface soil compaction, damage to trunks and branches, grade changes, and alteration of surface and sub-surface drainage patterns. How much construction impact a tree can tolerate depends on age, species tolerance, health, structure, and previous exposure to wind and sun as well as treatment during construction.
The Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for preservation. I used the Concord Crossing Masterplan (EV&A dated 09-30-24), to determine the project area and evaluate preliminary impacts to trees. This report is preliminary because no site grading, utility, or other construction plans were reviewed. Exact trunk locations in relation to the proposed plans are unknown and potential impacts could not be determined.
The proposed plans include renovation of 206 residential units in Victory Village and redevelopment of Quinault Village. The area of renovation includes 386 trees and the area of demolition includes 262 trees. Potential impacts could not be ascertained from the plans. Focus tree preservation efforts on trees with high and moderate suitability for preservation (338 trees).
Trees with low suitability (213 trees) are unlikely to be assets to the new project.
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.
The response of individual trees depends on the amount of excavation and grading, care with which demolition is undertaken, and construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Plans needed to develop accurate TREE PROTECTION ZONES would include site layout, grading, utilities, planting and irrigation plans. Specific Tree Protection measures can be developed when construction plans are available for review. At the Concept Phase, we recommend the following steps:
Retaining trees, in good condition with high or moderate suitability for preservation, particularly native trees and Protected trees.
Establishing TREE PROTECTION ZONES for each tree to be preserved. TREE PROTECTION ZONES are identified by the Consulting Arborist based on species tolerances, tree condition, trunk diameters and the nature and proximity of the proposed disturbance.
The Consulting Arborist shall review project plans when they are available to establish these zones. All plans should include accurate tree locations so that impacts can be accurately located and adequate tree protection measures can be determined.
Tree Protection Zone
1. According to the Concord Dev Code 18.310.020, a TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) “shall be established for each protected tree at the outer edge of the tree canopy or drip zone in all directions, unless a larger area is required by an ISA certified Arborist.”
2. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree shall be the dripline of the tree as noted above. Where trees
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 13 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company grow in groups, fence around a collective TPZ using the diameters of the edge trees to calculate the radius, or the edge of existing pavement.
3. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6-foot tall chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.
4. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is complete.
5. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Design recommendations
1. Plot accurate locations of all trees to be preserved on all project plans. Identify the TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree. Focus on preserving trees that have high suitability for preservation.
2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE trees shall be defined as the tree dripline.
3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.
4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.
5. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.
6. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.
7. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.
Therefore, foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.
3. Apply and maintain 4 to 6-inch wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Keep the mulch 2-feet from the base of tree trunks.
4. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 14 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
5. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade.
6. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install temporary trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattle or wood planks around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks to a height of approximately 5’. Any low branches that are within the work zone should also be protected. Remove trunk protection after demolition is completed and install protective fence at the limits of the tree protection zone. The type and extent of trunk protection can be determined when project plans are available for review by the Consulting Arborist. Do not retain wattling around tree trunks for more than 2 months to avoid damaging trunks from excess moisture.
7. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding the stump below ground.
8. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground. Brush shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Tie back branches and wrap trunks with protective materials to protect from injury as directed by the Consulting Arborist. The Consulting Arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.
10. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 15 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.
3. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
4. Tree protection fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.
5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
6. Prior to grading, pad preparation, excavation for foundations/footings/walls, trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required and monitor all root pruning activities.
7. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
8. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.
9. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.
Preliminary Arborist Report. Coast Guard Site. Concord. Page 16 EVA Architects October 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Brenda Wong
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist WE12933A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
American Society of Consulting Arborists Member
If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Attachments
Tree Assessment Map
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Key
2055 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Prepared For:
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
January 2023
Prestwick Ave
Saratoga Ave
Hamilton Ave
Prestwick Ave
Ronald Way
Esperanza
Dr
Montgomery Ave
Bento
E
Olivera
Rd
E Olivera Rd
Dr
Esperanza Dr
Hamilton Ave
Prestwick Ave
Esperanza
Dr
Moretti Dr
Saratoga
Ave
Be
n
n
ett Way
Hamilton
Ave
Hamilton Ave
Pyro
St
Mt H
o
od Cir
E Olivera Rd
Moretti Dr
Woodhaven Ln
Holbrook Dr
Bonifacio St
Huron Dr
Mars
St
Mt Hoo d Cir
Mauna Kea Ct
E Olivera Rd
E Olivera Rd
Kiska Ct
Mt Hood Cir
Haleakala St
M
t H
o
o
d
C
ir
1 2
3 4
Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Trees
Tree Assessment Map Page Extents
Boundary
¯
0 205 410 820 Feet
Tree Assessment Map
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Prepared For:
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
January 2023
2055 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Esperanza Dr
Esperanza Dr
Ha
milton Av
e
Enterprise Ct
Hamilton Ave
Esperanza Dr
Hamilton Ave
Esperanza Dr
Hamilton Ave
Hamilton Ave
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
601 600
602 603 604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, SFEI & Quantum Spatial, Maxar, Microsoft Trees
Boundary
0 45 90
¯
180 Feet
Tree Assessment Map
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Prepared For:
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
January 2023
2055 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Hamilton Ave
Hancock Ct
Hamilton Ave
Hamilton Ave
Montgomery Ave
Hamilton Ave
Hamilton Ave
498
502 501
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520 521
522
523
546
547
550
551
552
553
554 555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
567
563 564
565
566
568
569
570
572
573
577
575
576
574
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588 589
590
591
615
616
617
618
620
619
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, SFEI & Quantum Spatial, Maxar, Microsoft Trees
Boundary
0 45 90
¯
180 Feet
Tree Assessment Map
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Prepared For:
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
January 2023
2055 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
e
Montg
omery Av
e
E Olivera Rd
Montgomery Ave
Hamilton Ave
Ave
Hamilton
Ave
Pyro St
Mt
Ho
od
Cir
E Olivera Rd
Mt Hood Cir
Kiska Ct
Mt Hood Cir
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9
10 11
12 27
28 29
32 31 30
33 34
35 36
37 38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 85
97 204
205
206
208 207
209
210
211
212
215 214 213
216 217
219 218
220 221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
334 333
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
359
361
362
363
387
388
389 390
391
392
393 394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
404 403
405
406
407
408 409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
430
428
429
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
452 451
453 454
455
469
458 457
459
461 460
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
456
470
471
472
473
474
475
476 477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
502 501
503
504
505 506
507
508
509
510
511
559
560
561 562
567 563
564
565
566
568
569
570
571
427
572
573
577
575
576
574
578
579
580
583
631
632
633
634
635 636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647 648
Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, SFEI & Quantum Spatial, Maxar, Microsoft Trees
Boundary
0 65 130
¯
260 Feet
Tree Assessment Map
Coast Guard Site
Concord, CA
Prepared For:
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd, Unit 810
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
January 2023
2055 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Hamilton
Ave
Pyro St
Mt H
o
o
d
Cir
E Olivera Rd
Ma
rs St
Mt H
o
o
d
Cir
Mt Hood Cir
Mauna Kea Ct
E Olivera Rd
Kiska Ct
Mt Hood Cir
Mt Hood Cir
1 2
4 3
5 6
7 8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 28 27
30 29
32 31 34 33
35 36
37 38 39
40 41
42 43
45 44
46 47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116 117
118 119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
132 131
133
134
135
137 136
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151 150
152 153
154
155
157 156
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
206 205
208 207
209
210
211
212
213
214
215 216
217
218
219
220
222 221
224 223
225
227 226
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249 250
251
252
253
254
255
256 257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284 285
286
287
288
289 290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321 322
323
324
325
326
327
328 329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
356 355
357
359 358
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390 391
392 393
394 395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
404 403
405
406
407
409 408
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
434
435 436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447 448
449
450 451
452
453 454
455
469
457
460
467
468
456
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
638
639
640
Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Trees
Boundary
0 80 160
¯
320 Feet